EFTA00009229.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 20 
1 
2 
3 
A 
Sure. That's why I said in a typical --
Q 
Okay. 
A 
It's difficult to sort of recreate the 
4 
interactions, but he certainly could come to me directly, and 
5 
in some cases, I would say probably would. 
6 
Q 
Again, it being a large office with several 
7 
physical locations, and we understand it, a very high 
8 
volume --
9 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
10 
Q 
-- of cases --
11 
A 
Right. 
12 
Q 
-- and particularly in the criminal context, is it 
13 
fair to say you didn't review every prosecution as it was 
14 
brought? 
15 
A 
It -- it is not just fair, but accurate. I recall 
16 
a conversation with a U.S. Attorney from a small district 
17 
early on at one U.S. Attorney's conference where we compared 
18 
notes, and the interaction of an office with 30 prosecutors 
19 
is very different than one with --
20 
Q 
Hm-hmm. 
21 
A 
-- a few hundred prosecutors. 
22 
Q 
So, when you did engage on a -- on a criminal case, 
23 
would you -- whether it was a planned prosecution or a case 
24 
heading to trial, would you generally rely on written 
25 
submissions, or would you -- this is really an --
EFTA00009248

Page 21 
1 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
2 
Q 
-- inquiry into --
3 
A 
Right. 
4 
Q 
-- your style, or would you have everybody 
S 
together, and talk about it, or would you rely on your most 
6 
immediate subordinates to be briefing you? How -- which one 
7 
of those --
A 
So --
9 
Q 
-- kinds of --
10 
A 
So --
11 
Q 
-- approaches --
12 
A 
So --
13 
Q 
-- did you take? 
14 
A 
I would say that really depended, and probably 
15 
varied based on -- on individual needs. For the most part, I 
16 
would most likely just speak with my first assistant and/or 
17 
criminal chief, and assess what else needed to be done. 
18 
Q 
In other words, you would sort of do it on a --
19 
sort of on a verbal, or based on oral --
20 
A 
Correct. 
21 
Q 
-- interaction and --
22 
A 
Correct. 
23 
Q 
-- presentation as opposed to going through stacks 
24 
of papers? 
25 
A 
For -- for the -- I would say that was typical. 
EFTA00009249

Page 22 
1 
Q 
Yeah. 
2 
A 
I don't want to say that was the case every single 
3 
time, but that was -- was typical. 
4 
Q 
All right, and to what extent did you go out and 
5 
about to encounter the line attorneys, or example? Was that 
6 
something that you were able to do and wanted to do? 
7 
A 
Yes, and yes, and you know, I -- when I started, I 
8 
made it a point of walking every floor and meeting everyone, 
9 
and in -- toward the end of the day, I would also if I could 
10 
make it a point -- particularly of major crimes of just 
11 
walking down to the floor and seeing who was there and what 
12 
they were doing and -- and sort of popping my head in and 
13 
just saying hi because I think it's the right thing to do. 
14 
Q 
Okay. Okay. Was that a way to support the troops, 
15 
or was it more a way for you to find -- to become informed 
16 
about what was going on? 
17 
A 
Probably a little of both, of support the troops, 
18 
but also get the temperature for the office, see how matters 
19 
are progressing. 
20 
Q 
You at the criminal -- or, rather, the civil rights 
21 
division, had experience with human trafficking and child sex 
22 
trafficking cases --
23 
A 
Correct. 
24 
Q 
-- under your supervision. We understand that you 
25 
brought that concern, or your concern about those issues with 
EFTA00009250

Page 23 
1 
you to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that -- we know that 
2 
under your tenure, the U.S. Attorney's Office had many 
3 
successful prosecutions involving conduct ranging from 
4 
internet child pornography --
5 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
6 
Q 
-- to international sex tourism --
7 
A 
Correct. 
8 
Q 
-- victimizing children in particular. In mid-
9 
2007, you -- according to press reports, you set up a new 
10 
special prosecutions unit --
11 
A 
Correct. 
12 
Q 
-- to focus on, among other things, sex crimes 
13 
against children. Could you tell us what importance those 
14 
kinds of cases held for you as U.S. Attorney? 
15 
A 
Sure. If I could -- if I could just back up a 
16 
little bit, because the -- the question goes -- the special 
17 
prosecutions unit, and let me address that part of it. There 
18 
are a few things embedded in that. 
19 
Q 
MM-hmm. 
20 
A 
There's -- there's -- the special prosecutions unit 
21 
was set up because there were some issues that -- that I 
22 
thought were important to pursue in particular, and one of 
23 
those was -- was sort of the trafficking issues. Another one 
24 
was the gun violence, and the intent of special prosecutions 
25 
was to have a group of individuals that would sort of be 
EFTA00009251

Page 24 
1 
dedicated and not part of the usual major crimes group. So, 
2 
it wasn't exclusively -- I -- your question may have implied 
3 
it was exclusively for sex crimes, and it --
4 
Q 
Oh, no. 
5 
A 
-- and it wasn't -- yeah. 
6 
Q 
No, I understand it was not. 
7 
A 
Right. 
8 
Q 
Okay. 
9 
A 
And so, I thought it was sufficiently important, 
10 
and so, it was one of the -- one of the initiatives that we 
11 
were certainly pursuing. 
12 
Q 
And was that something that you can -- that -- to 
13 
which you brought your experience as head of the civil rights 
14 
division as well? 
15 
A 
It was. I think -- not I think I know when I was 
16 
head of civil rights that that's something that I'd put 
17 
particular emphasis on, and I thought civil rights really 
18 
stepped up and did a great job on that. 
19 
Q 
Did you yourself ever -- I recognize you were never 
20 
a prosecutor as such. 
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
Q 
But did you ever have experience being involved in 
23 
a prosecution that -- sort of the nitty-gritty of the 
24 
prosecution of that kind of case? Sort of seconding yourself 
25 
to a trial team, for example, or an investigation? 
EFTA00009252

Page 25 
1 
A 
So, if by nitty-gritty you mean seconding myself to 
2 
a trial team the answer would be no. 
3 
Q 
All right. 
4 
A 
There are a number of cases that I recall being 
5 
briefed on and talking about, but --
6 
7 
A 
8 
9 
program, 
10 
A 
11 
12 
appointed 
13 
A 
Correct. 
14 
Q 
-- coordinator, and she was also of course the line 
15 
attorney on the Epstein case. How well did you know 
16 
, and can you -- can you give us your assessment of 
17 
her capabilities, judgement, and her interaction with you? 
18 
A 
So, a few things in there. How well did I know her 
19 
prior to appointment? I don't recall. I'm not -- I don't 
20 
think I knew her particularly well prior to appointment. She 
21 
was clearly respected within the office, and / don't recall 
22 
but I can speculate that she was appointed based on 
23 
recommendations of management, and her interest and some 
24 
combination -- and prior work and some combination thereof. 
25 
You asked me to characterize 
--
But at that high level? 
Correct. 
All right. The department set up in 2006 a PSC 
a Project Safe Childhood program --
Correct. 
-- focused on internet child pornography, and you 
as your first PSC --
EFTA00009253

Page 26 
1 
Q 
Her -- your view of 
2 
A 
Right. 
3 
Q 
-- her capabilities, her judgement 
4 
A 
Right. 
5 
Q 
her acumen, her knowledge of the law. 
6 
A 
I think she was a good, strong, professional AUSA. 
7 
I mean --
8 
Q 
Do you have any -- did you have any negative -- you 
9 
know, anything less than fully positive in your assessment of 
10 
her? 
11 
A 
No. 
12 
Q 
Okay. 
13 
A 
I think she was a good, strong, dedicated AUSA. 
14 
Q 
All right. 
15 
A 
Yeah. 
16 
Q 
-- was the managing AUSA at the West Palm Beach 
17 
office. 
18 
A 
Correct. 
19 
Q 
At least -- and would -- and 
worked 
20 
there. How closely did you work with 
and again, 
21 
that --
22 
A 
24m-hmm. 
23 
02 
-- assessment question --
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- what was your assessment of him? 
EFTA00009254

Page 27 
1 
A 
So, less so, only because of geographic distance. 
2 
Q 
Mt-hmm. 
3 
A 
I would also say he was a respected professional. 
4 
He had a good reputation. He went on to be chief of staff 
5 
here at the -- at the criminal division, which I think speaks 
6 
to how he was viewed within the department. 
7 
Q 
min-hmm. 
8 
A 
And so, I would say positive. 
9 
Q 
Okay. So, now turning to the Epstein case. 
10 
A 
Yeah. 
11 
Q 
Now that your recall has been refreshed by virtue 
12 
of the documents we've provided, before we get into the 
13 
actual sort of documents and some of the details of the 
14 
events, would you please give us a general overview of what 
15 
you currently remember, refreshed, about how the case came 
16 
into the U.S. Attorney's Office, how it was assessed for 
17 
prosecution, and how and why the decision was made to resolve 
18 
it with a two-year state plea that ultimately became an 18 --
19 
A 
Okay. 
20 
Q 
-- I mean, yeah, a two year state plea that 
21 
ultimate became --
22 
A 
All right. 
23 
Q 
-- an 18 month state plea. 
24 
A 
Okay, so --
25 
MR. HERRON: Before you answer the question, let me 
EFTA00009255

Page 28 
1 
just jump in on the notion of refresh your recollection, 
2 
which is -- of course has a very specific legal meaning, and 
3 
I think to assert that Mr. Acosta's recollection has been 
4 
refreshed generally probably overstates it. It's really a 
5 
document by document, issue by issue thing. So, I'd push 
6 
back on that --
7 
MS. 
: I --
8 
MR. HERRON: -- a little bit, but the question is 
9 
fair and accurate. 
10 
MS. 
: If you're talking about handing him 
11 
a document to refresh an exhausted recollection, that's not 
12 
the process we're talking about. We're using it in a more 
13 
lay term that, you know, if we asked you this before, giving 
14 
you all these documents, you'd probably would have not been 
15 
able to be as full in your responses. So, we're asking for 
16 
your full response. Thank you. 
17 
MR. HERRON: We appreciate the opportunity to 
18 
review the documents, and Alex, in your answers, try to 
19 
distinguish what you actually recall --
20 
THE WITNESS: Yeah. 
21 
MR. HERRON: -- in your own head versus what you 
22 
saw in the documents. 
23 
MS. 
: Yeah. 
24 
MR. HERRON: And that would make for --
25 
MS. 
. Thank you. 
EFTA00009256

Page 29 
MR. HERRON: -- the cleanest record. 
2 
THE WITNESS: Okay. So, three parts. How did it 
3 
come into the office? How did -- I'm sorry --
4 
BY MS. 
5 
Q 
How was -- how did it come in? 
6 
A 
Right. 
Q 
How was it assessed for prosecution --
8 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- and then how and -- how and why the decision was 
made --
A 
• 
-- to resolve it the way it was. 
13 
A 
So, so, let's begin with how did it come into the 
14 
office. Putting all the documents aside, I can't say with 
5 
certainty how it came in. I can speculate how it came in, 
16 
and the way it would have come into the office is 
can 
17 
speculate that the chief -- the chief rider from Palm Beach 
18 
County would have brought it to either the FBI or to the Palm 
19 
Beach Office. I'm not certain that I would have asked who 
20 
brought this case to the office as opposed to the case is now 
21 
in the office, so let's --
22 
Q 
Right. 
23 
A 
-- let's discuss it, right? The format, or the 
24 
mode in which it came in I think is important, because my 
25 
recollection is it arrived to us in the position that the 
EFTA00009257

Page 30 
1 
state attorney had negotiated a plea, and that the reason 
2 
that we looked at it was that that plea was going to be --
3 
that there had been an initial charge that wasn't pursued, 
4 
and that required jail time and registration, and that the 
S 
plea that was going to be taken was a charge that didn't 
6 
require jail time, and didn't require registration, and based 
7 
on the preliminary assessment of the facts, that seemed --
8 
that seems wrong. So, that's how did it arrive. The next 
9 
question was --
10 
Q 
How was it assessed for federal prosecution? 
11 
A 
So -- so, it was assessed for federal prosecution, 
12 
my recollection, from -- from very early on, and I'm sure 
13 
we'll talk about this some more, is you have a case that, 
14 
while technically it wasn't final at the state level, but for 
15 
federal involvement, would have been final, and -- and so 
16 
from the earliest point, we were thinking federal versus 
17 
state and petite, and the contemporaneous record sort of 
18 
shows 
at least the material that I got, the earliest 
19 
communication was Mr. 
telling me that 
is 
20 
preparing a petite policy waiver -- that Ms. 
is 
21 
preparing a petite policy waiver, and that's consistent with 
22 
my recollection of how it was assessed, and -- and then 
23 
brought in -- assessed, you know, does it make sense to go 
24 
forward, yes, investigate, and circle back. And then -- and 
25 
then the third part was the --
EFTA00009258

Page 31 
1 
2 
Q 
How and why the disposition. 
A 
So, my general recollection is the view was that if 
3 
the state had followed through on an original charge -- I 
4 
don't recall which -- that called for jail time and that 
5 
called for registration, that the local police or whoever 
6 
brought it would not have seen the need to refer it. 
7 
And so, that was in terms of pre-indictment 
8 
resolution, a -- a logical and reasonable place given all the 
9 
other sort of factors, both the petite concerns, the witness 
10 
concerns, and the legal concerns. 
11 
And to that, I would add a fourth concern, which is 
12 
it had already been reviewed by a grand jury at the state 
13 
level, is my recollection. And so, to some extent, that's 
14 
indicative of how some individuals may sort of view this 
15 
matter. 
16 
Q 
Okay. We're going to pick that apart. 
17 
A 
I figured. 
18 
Q 
But thank you for that. 
19 
A 
You -- you asked for an overview, so I tried to 
20 
just be very --
21 
Q 
Yeah. 
22 
A 
-- general. 
23 
Q 
That doesn't -- that doesn't -- the second part of 
24 
that last prong was -- was why a two year state plea. In 
25 
other words, you talked about -- you talked about assessing 
EFTA00009259

PaGe 
the case and why resolve it, but why with a two year state 
2 
plea? What's the --
3 
5 
A 
And so --
4 
-- overview? 
A 
And so my general recollection is -- my 
6 
understanding -- if I was asked, what is the best 
7 
understanding that I have of why two years, is that is what 
8 
would have been obtained in one of the original state 
9 
charges. Again, this is --
10 
Q 
How do you know that? 
A 
12 
Q 
How did you know that? 
13 
A 
I'm -- that's why I say general recollection. I'm 
14 
reconstructing memories of that 12 years ago. I can 
15 
speculate that at some point, the matter came up, and I or 
16 
someone else said if, you know, what would the original --
17 
what would the original plea have -- you know, what would the 
18 
original charges have likely brought? And someone said this 
19 
amount. 
20 
Q 
How would have said that? 
21 
A 
I -- I'm speculating at this point. I don't have a 
22 
recollection, but -- but that's -- that's my general 
23 
understanding. 
24 
Q 
All right. All right. We'll now unpack --
25 
A 
Yeah, I --
EFTA00009260

Page 33 
1 
2 
3 
Q 
-- some of that. 
A 
-- I noticed. 
Q 
And by the way, my colleagues, we're all in this 
4 
boat together. So, they're going to feel free to --
5 
6 
7 
8 
A 
I know. 
Q 
-- chime in --
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
as they see fit. So, the first thing going --
9 
going to the intake of the case, we know from the records 
10 
that -- and by the way, we've obviously done a great deal of 
11 
other investigation --
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- and spoken to many people. So, 
14 
briefed you and 
pretty much when the case first 
15 
came in --
16 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
17 
Q 
-- in mid-2006, after the FBI and indeed the 
18 
office -- the U.S. Attorney's Office in West Palm had opened 
19 
the case, but before Epstein was indicted. So, this first 
20 
exhibit, Exhibit No. 1 that you have in your binder before 
21 
you -- or, in your folder before you -- is that e-mail from 
22 
to you that you just referred to dated July 24 --
23 
A 
Right. 
24 
Q 
-- 2006, in which he's sort of passing on the 
25 
information that Epstein has by now been arrested -- been 
EFTA00009261

Page 34 
1 
indicted -- arrested and indicted by the state. Do you 
2 
recall anything about that original briefing from 
3 
4 
A 
I -- I don't. 
5 
Q 
All right. Did you know at the time that -- at the 
6 
time she briefed you --
7 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
8 
Q 
-- which is prior to Exhibit 1, did you know who 
9 
Epstein was? 
10 
A 
I did not. 
11 
Q 
Never heard of him, to your knowledge? 
12 
A 
To my knowledge, I don't recall having heard of 
13 
him. 
14 
Q 
And what did you understand at that early point the 
15 
case to be about? 
16 
A 
So, I don't recall the briefing, and so I can't 
17 
give an independent recollection. You know, based on this, I 
18 
mean, the --
19 
Q 
You're talking about Exhibit 1, and you're --
20 
A 
Based on --
21 
Q 
-- looking at --
22 
A 
-- based on Exhibit 1, you know, I can -- I can 
23 
infer that this would have been my general understanding of 
24 
the case, and you know, and the key things that I point here 
25 
is pre-trial diversion, which is code for no jail time, and 
EFTA00009262

Page 35 
1 
petite policy. 
2 
Q 
But this -- what -- Exhibit No. 1 --
3 
A 
Right. 
4 
Q 
-- does not make it clear to you that this case 
5 
involved allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had been enticing, 
6 
coercing, whatever verb you want to use, young, underage 
7 
females -- we will for the record call them girls here --
8 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
9 
Q 
-- as opposed to women, and these underage females 
10 
were being paid to provide him essentially with sex, or 
11 
sexual activity or conduct, of a pretty salacious nature. Do 
12 
you recall that as being essentially what you were briefed on 
13 
from the beginning? 
14 
A 
Again, I don't recall the initial briefing. I take 
15 
it based on your review that there was an initial briefing. 
16 
I can't say the degree of detail. I can't say what it was 
17 
about. As a -- as a typical matter, I wouldn't be briefed 
18 
when a case comes into the office other than being made 
19 
aware, this is a case, this is what we're looking at. 
20 
Q 
So, then, if you --
21 
A 
Sure. 
22 
Q 
-- understanding you don't remember the briefing, 
23 
is it fair to say that you did have some understanding of 
24 
what the case that was that West Palm Beach was pursuing as 
25 
of mid-2006? 
EFTA00009263

Page 36 
1 
A 
I certainly had an understanding of the general 
2 
facts of the case early on. I can't speak to whether it was 
3 
mid-2006 versus late 2006 versus 2007, but --
4 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
5 
A 
-- early on, I certainly had an understanding that 
6 
it was a case that involved, you know, a billionaire who was 
7 
doing sordid things with young women or girls who were 
8 
minors. 
9 
and the records indicate that her 
10 
concern in bringing this all the way to you --
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
A 
Km-hmm. 
Q 
-- and her first at that time criminal chief --
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- but sort of acting First Assistant 
was because she was afraid of political pressure that 
might be brought to bear against the U.S. Attorney's Office 
17 
in this case. Do you have any recollection of that being a 
18 
concern that was laid before you? 
19 
A 
I don't -- again, I don't recall the early -- that 
20 
briefing. I've reviewed this e-mail, and -- and I can -- you 
21 
know, I take it 
it would have been natural for me to say, 
22 
should we approach the state attorney, because we had lots of 
23 
ongoing matters with the state attorney, and it seems that 
24 
said no for fear it'll be leaked straight to Epstein, 
25 
and I assumed I'd let it be at that point. 
EFTA00009264

Page 37 
1 
Q 
And do you know -- oh, do you know what he meant by 
2 
it being leaked to Epstein by the state -- by Barry -- Barry 
3 
Krischer, the then State Attorney? 
4 
A 
So -- so, based on the context --
5 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
6 
A 
-- what I would assume is that if the state 
7 
attorney is cutting this kind of deal, and it appears that 
8 
things have already leaked, because you know, there's clearly 
9 
and article here with leaked -- you know, so, something has 
10 
already leaked. 
11 
Q 
You're referring to Exhibit 1? 
12 
A 
Exhibit 1. Other things would leak. 
13 
Q 
Had you ever met Barry Krischer? 
14 
A 
Sure. 
15 
Q 
What was your relationship with him? 
16 
A 
So, there were multiple state attorneys within the 
17 
district. He was -- it was a professional relationship. We, 
18 
you know --
19 
Q 
It was an elected position, correct? 
20 
A 
It was an elected position. 
21 
Q 
And what was your assessment of his aggressiveness 
22 
as a prosecutor, and his capabilities? 
23 
A 
On the public -- my -- most of my assessment with 
24 
him was on the public corruption front, where we had brought 
25 
several cases, and I was a little disappointed that these 
EFTA00009265

Page 38 
1 
were cases he could have brought that he chose not to bring. 
2 
Q 
Right. So, is it -- can I -- am I accurate in 
3 
inferring from that that you didn't regard him as a 
4 
particularly hard charging prosecutor? 
5 
A 
So, I -- with any state attorney, I hesitate to 
6 
sort of paint broad brush strokes. I don't think that's 
7 
always fair, but my experience had been in the public 
8 
corruption space. 
9 
Q 
Yeah. 
10 
A 
And in that space, I did not think -- whether it 
11 
was him, or whether it was his office, I can't speak, but I 
12 
did not think they had done as much as they could have done. 
13 
Q 
Is there any area in which you thought he and his 
14 
office did pursue aggressively? 
15 
A 
So, as I recall, we had had -- we had emphasized 
16 
gun crimes quite a bit, and really had had a lot of success 
17 
moving -- moving the ball in the gun crimes space in Palm 
18 
Beach. 
19 
Q 
What --
20 
A 
But let me -- let me just say, it's also very 
21 
difficult to reconstruct time frames. 
22 
Q 
MM-hmm. 
23 
A 
And so, I hesitate, because I don't know if that 
24 
was 2006 or 2007, or -- but you asked in another area, and --
25 
Q 
In this Exhibit 1, you ask whether it's 
EFTA00009266

Page 39 
1 
appropriate -- appropriate to approach Barry Krischer and 
2 
give him a heads up as to where the U.S. Attorney's Office 
3 
might go, presumably --
4 
A 
Right. 
5 
Q 
-- with this case? 
6 
A 
Correct. 
7 
Q 
Why would you want to extend that difference to 
8 
him? Why would it matter? 
9 
A 
A colleague in law enforcement. I thought it was 
10 
important for the office to work with -- with state attorneys 
11 
as a general matter, and I found that the office worked best 
12 
when it had good working relationships with state attorneys 
13 
and with -- you know, with -- for that matter, the agency 
14 
SACs and others, and --
15 
Q 
Right. 
16 
A 
-- but again, you know, rather than my asserting, 
17 
I'm asking 
, and 
was saying no, and I don't know 
18 
what the ultimate outcome was, but I would guess that we'd 
19 
just defer and let it be. 
20 
Q 
Turning to Exhibit 2, this is an e-mail that was 
21 
forwarded to you by 
22 
mail is from 
, the original forwarded e-
copying 
, and it 
23 
essentially relates to a dust up between 
and 
24 
over chain of command, and her workload, but 
25 
in the first paragraph, she specifies that, "When I first 
EFTA00009267

Page 40 
1 
heard about the Epstein investigation, I spoke with 
2 
about it. 
was not here." 
3 
said that she would back me up on the case, 
4 
but I knew what has happened to the state prosecution can 
5 
happen to the federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney's 
6 
Office isn't on board. So, I spoke with 
about the case, 
7 
and he spoke with Alex, and they gave the green light." 
8 
So, that -- that actually appears to be an initial 
9 
contact with 
that she's talking about prior to the 
10 
briefing of you, so, way early when the case first came in in 
11 
May of 2006. Do you recall being contacted or having a 
12 
conversation with --
13 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
14 
- 
- 
about that case so early? 
15 
A 
Again, the early recollection, whenever -- whenever 
16 
it might have taken place, was I was made aware of the 
17 
matter. It seemed a reasonable matter to pursue, and that's 
18 
the level of detail that I recall. 
19 
Q 
So, if 
said back in the day that she got from 
20 
you all the green light, what did you understand her to be 
21 
being authorized to do -- authorize may be too strong a word, 
22 
but --
23 
A 
So, to pursue -- to investigate -- to pursue --
24 
Q 
Yeah. 
25 
A 
-- to someone, you know, I -- I'm speculating here, 
EFTA00009268

Page 41 
1 
but there's a case, and they want to know, should we spend 
2 
our time on this? And the answer is it seems reasonable. 
3 
Sure. 
4 
Q 
Okay, and do you -- do you recall making that 
5 
explicit to her? 
6 
A 
I -- I don't, and -- and it wouldn't have been my 
7 
practice to -- to sort of make it explicit to -- yeah, go 
8 
spend your time, as opposed to, thank you for letting me 
9 
know, that sounds reasonable. 
10 
Q 
All right. 
11 
A 
And whatever, you know, details it looks like based 
12 
on Exhibit 1, there was subsequent follow up between her and 
13 
, or with her and the management team, and they said, you 
14 
know, go back, work on A, B, and C. 
15 
Q 
Do you know what 
was talking about 
16 
when she referred to something happening to a federal 
17 
prosecution if the U.S. Attorney is not on board? Had there 
18 
been a case in which you were not supportive of a particular 
19 
prosecution that was being proposed? 
20 
A 
None -- none that I recall, and -- and I knew that 
21 
what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a 
22 
federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney's not on board. I 
23 
don't recall any federal prosecution that I wasn't supportive 
24 
of, at least in -- in this context. 
25 
Q 
What do you mean by this context? 
 ,1
1•111•1 
EFTA00009269

Page 42 
1 
A 
It was my way of narrowing an answer so I didn't 
2 
spend the time to go through every office and every division. 
3 
For the most part, as I sit here, I'm sort of running through 
4 
each office. I don't recall any, and -- and if I could, 
5 
based on this -- on Exhibit 2, I'm not sure that she's 
6 
referring to a specific case as opposed to concerns that the 
7 
state prosecution started at point -- you know, with charges 
8 
that required jail time and ended up somewhere else, and it 
9 
may have been because management --
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
Q 
All right. 
A 
-- wasn't. 
Q 
But that's -- that's a current -- a reading of --
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
-- this, rather --
A 
That -- that's my --
Q 
-- than a recollection? 
A 
-- that's my reading, not --
Q 
All right. Based on the early description you got 
19 
of the case --
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
-- did you have any idea how many victims were 
22 
involved? 
23 
A 
I did not. 
24 
Q 
Did you know what the name of the case was? What 
25 
the investigation's name was? You know, cases get names. 
EFTA00009270

Page 43 
1 
A 
So, I know that based on review of the 
2 
correspondence, I may have known that then. I did not 
3 
independently recall that. 
4 
5 
6 
7 
Q 
That being Operation Leap Year? 
A 
Correct. 
Q 
All right, and do you know where that comes from? 
A 
I have -- well, I mean, other than February 20 --
8 
yeah, I don't know. 
9 
Q 
Well, the original allegations that came in 
10 
involved 28 victims, and then subsequently 
11 
she was uncovering more victims, so there were --
12 
A 
Yeah. 
advised that 
13 
Q 
-- over 30 victims. 
14 
A 
15 
Q 
Well over 30. 
16 
A 
I did not know that. 
17 
Q 
All right. You did not -- you -- as you sit here 
18 
today, you didn't know it? 
19 
A 
I don't recall knowing that. 
20 
Q 
But is it -- is it reasonable that the number of 
21 
victims would be one of the factors that you would have been 
22 
informed of at the time? 
23 
A 
I -- I don't know. I -- it all depends how 
24 
detailed that briefing was. Again, as a typical matter early 
25 
on, this is what is being done. I would trust my AUSAs and 
EFTA00009271

Page 44 
1 
my management staff --
2 
Q 
Right. 
3 
A 
-- to pursue it. It wouldn't be a, here are all 
4 
the facts associated with this case, just heads up. There is 
5 
a high profile case involving a very wealthy man abusing 
6 
young women, a state attorney is prosecuting, but you know, 
7 
there's dissatisfaction. I wanted to give you a heads up, 
8 
both to inform me, but also so that I'm aware in my 
9 
interactions with -- with other Palm Beach officials. 
10 
Q 
Okay. Based on whatever information you got at the 
11 
time, did you think that there was a federal interest to be 
12 
served by pursuing a federal prosecution potentially? 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
glossary convention --
22 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
-- that we are using is -- and we can use in this 
A 
Yes. 
Q 
And what was that? 
A 
So, the exploitation of young women. 
Q 
Girls. 
A 
Girls. 
Q 
I want to be -- I want to be --
A 
Minors. Minor females. 
Q 
All right. I -- you know, for a -- for a sort of a 
24 
interview, is girls --
25 
A 
Right. 
EFTA00009272

Page 45 
1 
Q 
-- for the victims who at the time of the conduct 
2 
were minors, and women, for those who were not, even though 
3 
the girls at a later time became age of --
4 
A 
Fair. 
5 
Q 
-- majority. 
6 
A 
Fair. 
7 
Q 
Okay. So, here, we're really talking about the 
8 
girls --
9 
A 
Okay. 
10 
Q 
-- who were victims. 
11 
A 
Yeah, yeah. 
12 
Q 
Okay. 
13 
A 
Girls, minor females. I just don't 
sometimes 
14 
that term is viewed differently. And so --
15 
Q 
Right. 
16 
A 
Yeah, so the exploitation of girls or minor 
17 
females, and that certainly is an important federal interest. 
18 
Q 
Well, and is the number and the breadth of the 
19 
scheme -- the scope of the activity also a factor there? In 
20 
other words, it wasn't one or two on one or two occasions. 
21 
A 
So, there's several factors that probably go into 
22 
what's the federal interest. The acts, the sordidness of the 
23 
acts, the -- the number, the likelihood or the importance of 
24 
registration was important to my mind because that -- that 
25 
goes to future prevention to putting the community on notice. 
EFTA00009273

Page 46 
1 
Q 
And were you aware that the individual in this 
2 
case, Epstein, also had homes in other districts, and that 
3 
there were -- it was an interstate activity on his part, the 
4 
interstate travel and so on? 
5 
A 
6 
MR. HERRON: I'm sorry, let me just -- we're still 
7 
in the original intake time frame --
8 
MS. 
: Yes. 
9 
MR. HERRON: -- here? 
10 
THE WITNESS: Yeah. Again, for the intake time, I 
11 
can't 
I can't speak to the details, because I don't 
12 
remember what the extent of that -- that intake briefing. 
13 
BY MS. 
14 
Q 
But as i -- as I -- as i --
15 
A 
Could I -- could I ask --
16 
Q 
Yes. 
17 
A 
-- a question? Was there -- was there a clear 
18 
briefing as opposed to a heads up based on the record? 
19 
Q 
Yes. That 
came to Miami to conduct 
20 
a briefing of you and --
21 
A 
Okay. 
22 
Q 
in order to tell you about this 
23 
case, and get from you 
24 
A 
Okay. 
25 
Q 
-- a green light --
EFTA00009274

Page 47 
1 
A 
2 
3 
Q 
-- to proceed with it. 
A 
I ask, because I recall an e-mail, and I don't know 
4 
what the time would have been, where she's coming to Miami, 
5 
and 
says, why don't you stop by my office first? 
6 
Q 
Right. 
7 
A 
And -- and -- and I keep -- I would -- I would 
8 
speculate that, why don't you stop by my office first is, why 
9 
don't you give me a bunch of details, and then we will walk 
10 
across to the U.S. Attorney --
11 
Q 
Right. 
12 
A 
-- and fill him in, and so that would have been 
13 
almost a two-tiered discussion. 
14 
Q 
And is that --
15 
A 
And I don't know if that -- if that -- the timeline 
16 
on that e-mail is when you say briefing. 
17 
Q 
Well, we are -- we are asking --
18 
A 
19 
Q 
What it -- what it would --
20 
A 
Yeah. 
21 
22 
A 
I'm speaking just based on review of the record, 
23 
not based on recollection here. 
24 
Q 
All right. So, you have -- to be clear, you have 
25 
no recollection of any specific briefing in 2006? 
EFTA00009275

1 
2 
3 
Page 48 
A 
I accept that I was made aware of the matter. 
Q 
Okay. 
A 
I can't say how or in what context or to what 
4 
degree of detail. 
5 
6 
Q 
Or by whom? 
A 
Or by whom. I knew the matter -- it's easier to 
7 
recollect at least for me what I knew as opposed to who told 
8 
me what. 
9 
Q 
All right. All right. At this point, would you 
10 
have had -- did you have -- if you -- at any point, did you 
11 
have any reservation about investigating and potentially 
12 
prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein, a reservation stemming from his 
13 
wealth, and reported standing in the community at all, and 
14 
influence? 
15 
A 
No, and we had prosecuted lots of influential folks 
16 
in the office. So, while he had wealth, it's not unusual --
17 
UBS was in the office at the time. I mentioned several high 
18 
profile Palm Beach public corruption cases. 
19 
Q 
So, there was no concern about possible negative 
20 
blowback in the press or the community or even at Main 
21 
Justice if you went after someone like Jeffrey Epstein? 
22 
A 
There was no concern stemming from his wealth or 
23 
his status. 
24 
Q 
What would it have stemmed from? 
25 
A 
At some point, I think there was concerns regarding 
EFTA00009276

Page 49 
1 
the -- the law, and we'll probably get into that. I alluded 
2 
to that earlier in the overview. I don't know if that would 
3 
have been developed this early on, but -- but that's not a 
4 
function of his wealth. That's a function of the fact 
5 
pattern. 
6 
Q 
Right. Right. Okay. So, as you mentioned petite 
7 
policy concerns, petite policy, petite policy, could you tell 
8 
us what your position was on the -- on the policy as it 
9 
applied in this case as you understood it from -- in the 
10 
beginning? 
11 
A 
So -- so, the policy, you know, on its face, 
12 
doesn't specifically apply. Based on Exhibit 1, I'm now 
13 
inferring, not recalling, it looks like either 
on her 
14 
own, or 
asked for a -- or, Mr. 
, asked for a 
15 
petite policy waiver memo to be prepared, in part on the 
16 
assumption that the state prosecution may or may not have 
17 
gone for it. 
18 
I don't know, but I know -- I do recall that early 
19 
on, this was unusual, because it had been -- he had been 
20 
arrested or arraigned. It was going forward on the part of 
21 
the state, and so here is the big bad federal government 
22 
stepping on a sovereign, you know, state, saying you're not 
23 
doing enough, and to my mind, when, you know, the whole idea 
24 
of the petite policy is to recognize that that estate has --
25 
you know, is an independent entity, and that we should 
EFTA00009277

Page 50 
1 
presume that what they're doing is correct, even if we don't 
2 
like the outcome, except in the most unusual of 
3 
circumstances. 
4 
Q 
And what kinds of -- well, so, the petite policy 
5 
exists because there's a recognition that there are cases 
6 
that are appropriately pursued. I mean, you were the head of 
7 
the civil rights division, after all. 
8 
A 
Correct, which is why I say except in the most 
9 
appropriate of circumstances. 
10 
Q 
Right. 
11 
A 
But let me add that based on this, I was 
12 
comfortable, you know, saying, let's go forward, because the 
13 
lack of jail time, you know, to use -- to use petite policy 
14 
language, a plea that did not include jail time or 
15 
registration would seem like a manifest injustice. 
16 
Q 
All right. So, did you have any doubt that you'd 
17 
get a waiver if you applied for one? 
18 
A 
I'm not -- so -- so, I'm now speculating. I don't 
19 
recall, but I'm not sure I would have said, is there a doubt 
20 
that I'd get a waiver as opposed to, is this something I feel 
21 
comfortable doing, or not? And --
22 
Q 
And this being the prosecution, or this being 
23 
the -- applying for a waiver? 
24 
A 
Applying for a waiver. And so, you know, either 
25 
main justice gives it or doesn't give it. That doesn't mean 
EFTA00009278

Page 51 
1 
you don't apply for it if you think it's the right thing to 
2 
do. 
3 
So, for example, in the UBS case, which was one of 
4 
our big tax, you know, prosecutions, we asked for a Bank of 
5 
Nova Scotia --
6 
Q 
ME-hum. 
7 
A 
-- authorization to the Bank of Nova Scotia 
8 
subpoena, and I didn't think Main Justice would -- you know, 
9 
I pushed really hard, and I got into the weeds in that case 
for that purpose, but I still thought, let's go for it, and 
we did, and Main Justice didn't give in to it, and that's 
12 
okay. That's how it works. 
13 
Q 
Okay. So, they denied that request? 
14 
A 
They denied that request, and I say that as an 
15 
example of -- as a typical matter, I don't think what's main 
16 
justice going to say, as opposed to how do we 
how should 
17 
we approach this matter? 
18 
Q 
I don't understand about what you mean by, how 
19 
should we approach this matter. 
20 
A 
So, honestly, how do I -- how do I explain this? 
21 
So, I think there's a difference in saying, let me predict 
22 
how main justice will come out, and follow that prediction, 
23 
versus, folks, what do you all think? Okay. If we're 
24 
comfortable with this, let's write it up, and let's see what 
25 
Main Justice does. 
EFTA00009279

Page 52 
1 
One is trying to predict what folks in this 
2 
building are going to think. Another one is trying to 
3 
predict -- another one is saying, what do we in Miami think, 
4 
and then let main justice figure it out. 
Q 
And which is the approach you typically took? 
6 
A 
And my point is the approach that I typically took 
7 
is, what do we think, and let main justice give it a thumbs 
8 
up or a thumbs down. 
9 
Q 
All right, and in this case, did you do that with 
10 
regard to the petite policy? 
11 
A 
So, in this case, we didn't get that far in that we 
12 
didn't have to submit to DOJ. 
13 
Q 
MM-hmm. 
14 
A 
But -- but we were approaching it not based on what 
15 
main justice was going to think, but what do we feel is the 
16 
right outcome in this office. 
17 
Q 
So, as I understand, the bottom line is that you 
18 
didn't 
as I hear you, I believe you're saying that you 
19 
didn't stand down, or in any way cease or limit pursuing this 
20 
case on petite policy grounds. You pursued it as you -- as 
21 
you would --
22 
A 
So, we went forward with the matter, although there 
23 
were petite policy concerns in the background. So -- so 
24 
you're setting this up as a binary -- as a -- did -- was it a 
25 
fact -- as a binary, you did not limit yourself on petite 
EFTA00009280

Page 53 
1 
policy grounds, and I'm pushing back a little bit, because I 
2 
don't think it's, it's part or it's not, as opposed to when 
3 
you look at a case, there are all sorts of factors, and it is 
4 
a factor in how you think of a matter going forward. 
BY MS. 
Q 
If you had those petite policy concerns -- you or 
members of your staff? 
8 
A 
I would say a combination of me and my management 
9 
staff. 
11 
3 
14 
BY MS. 
Q 
Who? Who? 
A 
I can't -- I can't recreate --
Q 
But who are you dealing with on this case? 
A 
Primarily, it would be my first assistant and 
15 
criminal chief as I typically -- so, there is, you know, to 
16 
sort of put it in main justice terms, you know, a line 
17 
attorney has a deputy section chief and a section chief and a 
18 
DAG and an AAG, and the AAG usually deals with the section 
19 
chief, or the DAG. And so, I was dealing with my first 
20 
assistant and my crim chief. 
21 
Q 
Right, and they were there in Miami. 
22 
A 
And they were there in Miami. 
23 
Q 
And by the way, 
first line 
24 
supervisor was 
25 
A 
rect. 
EFTA00009281

Page 54 
1 
Q 
Do you know why she was not actively participating 
2 
in this chain of command? 
3 
A 
I noticed that in the correspondence, and I 
4 
couldn't speak to that. 
5 
Q 
All right. 
6 
A 
But the -- but it goes to the point that if you 
look at the -- she reported to 
, who reported to 
8 
who reported to 
who reported to 
. And so, as a 
9 
typical matter, I tried to empower my first assistant and my 
10 
criminal chief and my office heads and work through them, not 
11 
bypass them. 
12 
Q 
In this particular case with regard either to the 
13 
petite policy --
14 
A 
Right. 
15 
Q 
-- or any other aspect, was there anyone other than 
16 
that group of five, if you will, in that chain --
17 
A 
Correct. 
18 
Q 
-- from you down to 
through 
19 
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
-- and 
that you were dealing with? 
22 
A 
I can't recall. I -- I can -- I can say as a 
23 
general matter, it would not be unusual for me to walk 
24 
down -- walk down the hall and talk to someone that I trust 
25 
and say, hey, I've got this fact pattern. What do you think? 
EFTA00009282

Page 55 
1 
Q 
Do you recall ever doing that in connection with 
2 
this case? 
3 
A 
I -- I don't recall the specific briefings or who I 
4 
talked to. I'm just saying as a general matter that there 
5 
are folks on my -- on the eighth floor that were in 
6 
management that I would often just walk down the hall, and --
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
Q 
But do you recall doing that --
A 
I don't --
Q 
-- in this case? 
A 
I don't recall. 
Q 
Okay. So, we shared with you in Exhibit 3 a pretty 
12 
lively exchange between 
and 
13 
You didn't -- we have no reason to believe you saw this 
14 
before, but it makes some representations about you, and 
15 
that's why we brought it to your attention. 
16 
A 
Okay. 
17 
Q 
Do you recall this e-mail exchange? 
18 
A 
I don't recall the e-mail exchange. 
19 
Q 
I mean, you --
20 
A 
But I --
21 
Q 
-- didn't see it then. Do you recall having read 
22 
it before today? 
23 
A 
I recall reviewing it, yes. 
24 
Q 
All right. Okay. So, starting from the end, 
25 
using 
Blackberry, which is a little 
EFTA00009283

Page 56 
1 
confusing to begin with -- notifies .= 
that -- of a -- of 
2 
a particular conversation he had with one of the defense 
3 
attorneys. At this point, what I want to do is draw your 
4 
attention to the -- the comment, and his response, and we're 
5 
looking at page --
6 
A 
Page --
7 
Q 
-- three. 
8 
A 
-- page three. 
9 
Q 
So, in the third paragraph --
10 
A 
Yeah. 
11 
Q 
-- "it was made clear to you by the U.S. Attorney 
12 
and the first assistant from the time when you were first 
13 
authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had 
14 
concerns about taking the case because of petite policy and a 
15 
number of legal issues." And then later he says that, "You 
16 
were never given authorization by anyone to seek an 
17 
indictment in this case." 
18 
And -- close quote -- and then on the first page, 
19 
presents her version of that original contact 
20 
with you, meeting with you, at the bottom of the page. 
21 
Halfway through the last paragraph, she says, "My 
22 
recollection of the original meeting with Alex and 
is 
23 
quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I 
24 
summarized the case and the state attorney's office handling 
25 
of it." 
EFTA00009284

1 
Page 57 
acknowledged that we needed to do work to 
2 
collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I 
3 
noted the time and month," -- that -- I'm sorry, "I noted the 
4 
time and money that would be required for an investigation. 
5 
I said I was willing to invest time and the FBI was willing 
6 
to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the end of 
7 
it," -- "to the end, and then have the office be intimidated 
8 
by the high powered lawyers. I was assured that would not 
9 
happen." Can you tell us which version of that initial --
10 
which version --
11 
12 
13 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- is correct? 
A 
So, again, I don't remember that initial briefing, 
14 
so I can't tell you which version is correct. I would also 
15 
say that it's possible neither version is correct and that 
16 
there's a little bit of truth -- now I'm just speculating --
17 
Q 
All right. 
18 
A 
that there's a little bit of truth in either 
19 
one, because it's certainly possible to say, I hear you, 
20 
righteous case, go forward and investigate, work on the 
21 
federal nexus, which is what Exhibit 3 is saying, go work on 
22 
the federal nexus and find evidence for the federal nexus. 
23 
But we have concerns about petite policy and legal matters, 
24 
so there's a lot of work to be done. 
25 
Q 
So, what kind of a direction does that amount to 
EFTA00009285

Page 58 
1 
for the line AUSA? What's her job then? 
2 
A 
So, the job would then be to go back and 
3 
investigate, and develop facts and report back. 
4 
Q 
And if she developed enough facts, and supportive 
5 
law to present proposed prosecution? 
6 
7 
8 
A 
Right. 
Q 
Okay. 
A 
And so -- so, a lot of times in this he said, she 
9 
said, there's a little bit of truth to both sides of the 
10 
discussion. I'm just -- I'm just saying as a general matter, 
11 
I wouldn't -- your questions are sometimes either or, and 
12 
sometimes --
13 
Q 
Right. 
14 
A 
-- it can be a combination of both. 
15 
Q 
All right, and -- but in fact you don't recall? 
16 
A 
But I'm speculating. 
17 
Q 
All right. Is there anything in either of those 
18 
that two accounts -- two versions that you say didn't happen, 
19 
couldn't happen? 
20 
A 
I can't, because I don't recall it. I can't --
21 
Q 
Okay. 
22 
A 
-- speak to that. I would speculate that there's 
23 
probably a little bit of truth on both sides that -- and if 
24 
you read it closely, you'll see that 
acknowledges the 
25 
need to work on a federal nexus. So, that goes to, you know, 
EFTA00009286

Page 59 
1 
where 
or, Mr. la 
I'm sorry, I'm calling -- I'm 
2 
using first names. 
3 
Q 
Its' all right. 
4 
A 
So, I'm going to just start --
4 
This is an informal interview. 
6 
A 
I'm going to just start using first names. I don't 
7 
mean that disrespectfully -- where, you know, Illlisays, you 
8 
know, because of petite policy and legal issues, and 
is 
9 
acknowledging the legal issues, because she's saying needed 
10 
work to do to collect evidence establishing the federal 
11 
nexus. 
12 
Q 
All right. 
13 
A 
So --
14 
Q 
Yeah. 
15 
A 
So, they're not as inconsistent as presented 
16 
Q 
All right. 
17 
A 
-- arguably. 
18 
Q 
Sack in 2006, in this Exhibit No. 1, 
19 
tells you in his e-mail that the indictment target date is 
20 
August 25, 2006. 
21 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
22 
Q 
In other words, very shortly --
23 
A 
Right. 
24 
Q 
-- thereafter, within a month or so. Do you know 
25 
why the line AUSA, 
, was keen on getting the 
EFTA00009287

federal case against Epstein brought on a fairly -- on a 
2 
quick basis? 
3 
A 
So, I can't speak to that, and -- and can I 
4 
I ask, based on your record, was that that the -- was that 
5 
the state indictment target date, or was that --
6 
Q 
He already --
A 
-- a federal --
B 
Q 
-- Epstein had already been indicted and arraigned 
on the --
10 
A 
Right. 
11 
Q 
-- indictment, so that's the federal. 
12 
A 
So -- so, that's --
1: 
Q 
That's talking about a federal indictment. 
14 
A 
All right. 
15 
Q 
The point --
16 
A 
Correct. 
17 
Q 
-- is that early on --
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
-- the investigative team, the FBI --
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
-- and 
were hot to trot to get 
22 
this --
23 
A 
Right. 
24 
Q 
-- case moving from a federal standpoint. That may 
25 
well have been quite unrealistic given --
EFTA00009288

Page 61 
1 
A 
Correct. 
2 
Q 
-- all of the issues that we've been discussing, 
3 
but the question is, do you know why there was some urgency? 
4 
A 
I haven't the slightest idea. When was it -- when 
5 
was it initially brought to the office? 
6 
Q 
It was brought to the office in May of --
7 
A 
Right. 
8 
Q 
-- 2006. 
9 
A 
That -- that would be a really, really fast 
10 
timeline. 
11 
Q 
Right. So, the question is, aspirational though it 
12 
may have been, there was a hope --
13 
A 
14 
Q 
-- to get it done quickly. 
15 
A 
Right. 
16 
Q 
So, the question is, can you think of factors that 
17 
would have led a prosecutor to want to pursue --
18 
A 
I --
19 
Q 
-- this quickly? 
20 
A 
I don't recall. I can speculate that 
was 
21 
very hard charging and wanted to do a lot, and --
22 
Q 
Was that your experience of her? 
23 
A 
So, based on this, I see, you know, so, Exhibit 2 
24 
is, you know 
25 
Q 
Excuse me, would -- but just from your memory, is 
EFTA00009289

Page 62 
1 
that your recollection of hove 
operated? Hard charging? 
2 
A 
Yeah. I'd say -- so, a lot of really good 
3 
prosecutors are hard charging. That's --
4 
Q 
All right. 
5 
A 
-- that's part of the job description. 
6 
Q 
Okay. 
7 
A 
And so, yes. 
8 
Q 
Okay. Did -- so, in the child sex offender 
9 
context, are you familiar with a -- the belief on the part of 
10 
people who do that kind of case, as did 
and 
11 
others in your office -- that those offenders typically don't 
12 
stop offending, even after somebody's onto them? So that 
13 
there was a concern that he -- that in this case, Jeffrey 
14 
Epstein might be continuing to offend, and therefore getting 
15 
him off the streets was --
16 
A 
Right. 
17 
Q 
-- a priority? 
18 
A 
I have heard that discussed recently in the media. 
19 
I don't recollect that back in -- part of a discussion back 
20 
in 2006. 
21 
Q 
All right. Okay. Do you recall that 
22 
-- and this is just a, do you recall --
23 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
24 
Q 
-- that she periodically would give you in that 
25 
early period of 2006, updates -- written updates? 
EFTA00009290

Page 63 
1 
2 
A 
I don't. 
Q 
Did you think that it was appropriate for a line 
3 
AUSA to be shooting e-mails updating on a case that was under 
4 
investigation directly to you and your first assistant? 
5 
A 
It was unusual, and -- and so, so, did I think of 
6 
a -- look, I can't reconstruct what I would have thought, but 
7 
you know, you're asking not just what did I know, but what 
8 
would I have thought 12 years ago. 
9 
But I can say that based on general practice, it 
10 
would have been unusual, and my best guess as to how I would 
11 
have reacted would have been, hey, 
, this is unusual, is 
12 
the chain being fully informed? Are feathers being --
13 
Q 
Right. 
14 
A 
ruffled? Figure it out, because, you know, you 
15 
asked me early on to characterize 
qualities. I think 
16 
one of the things that I said was he was very good at 
17 
smoothing things --
18 
Q 
MW-hmm. 
19 
A 
-- over. And sort of the interaction, because he 
20 
was respected, and so I might say, that's kind of unusual. 
21 
Go figure it out. 
22 
Q 
But you wouldn't necessarily jump that chain 
23 
yourself, and be --
24 
A 
25 
Q 
-- in direct communication? 
EFTA00009291

Page 64 
1 
A 
I tended not to --
2 
Q 
Okay. 
3 
A 
-- do that. 
4 
BY 
5 
Q 
Would she have sent this to you -- something 
6 
unusual, if she thought that this was a case that you wanted 
7 
to be involved in? 
8 
A 
Even in -- even in those, I tried to be, as a 
9 
general matter, fairly sensitive to the chain, because I had 
10 
found that if you start jumping the chain too much, even if 
11 
you become informed, managers feel, you know, out of -- out 
12 
of the loop, and that's not -- that's not conducive to sort 
13 
of allowing them to do their job of supervising. It's a big 
14 
enough office, you have to empower your folks to do their 
15 
jobs. 
16 
Q 
So the concern on your part would not be that she 
17 
was communicating directly to you, but that as long as all of 
18 
the chain was informed as well? 
19 
A 
Yeah. I mean, if you're -- if you're 
20 
or you know, if you're 
, or you know, don't you want to 
21 
talk to the line attorney before the line attorney talks to 
22 
your boss? 
23 
And so, it's not just informed, but it's respecting 
24 
your supervisor. And it's a difficult balance, because often 
25 
really good AUSAs are also the ones that, you know, just want 
EFTA00009292

Page 65 
1 
to get things done. 
2 
BY MS. 
3 
Q 
Did you have any reason to believe during this 
4 
investigative phase that ME 
was not pursuing 
5 
this case -- this investigation adequately, appropriately, 
6 
and fully? 
7 
A 
No, I did not. 
8 
Q 
Did you --
9 
A 
Not to my recollection. 
10 
Q 
Did you feel that she did not have appropriate 
11 
oversight? 
12 
A 
Not to my recollection. 
13 
Q 
Okay. Do you -- did you feel that she had any 
14 
resource problem? That is, did she have, as far as you knew, 
15 
sufficient resources available to pursue her investigation? 
16 
A 
To my recollection, yes, I noted her early -- you 
17 
know, I noted more recently the e-mail where -- you know, 
18 
that was shared with me by 
about resource concerns, and 
19 
I would just note that I would allow the management chain to 
20 
figure that out. 
21 
Q 
All right. Were you -- did you at any point 
22 
consider, based on what you then knew, expanding the scope of 
23 
the investigation? Did you ever suggest or propose that 
24 
instead of simply looking at Epstein's conduct in West Palm 
25 
Beach vis a vis these girls, that the federal authorities 
EFTA00009293

Page 66 
1 
could use their resources to look at other aspects of 
2 
Epstein's activities? 
3 
A 
So, I -- so, I think it's important to take a step 
4 
back, and I was aware of any number of cases going on in the 
office, and based on what that stage of case was at, I would 
6 
get more involved for a time. 
7 
It wasn't my practice to direct AUSAs in how they 
8 
should investigate, or what the scope of a case investigation 
9 
should be. They -- the Miami office, before I got there, and 
10 
after I left, had a reputation for knowing their stuff. It's 
11 
a large office. It's got good people. I would assume that 
12 
AUSAs and their management would follow their natural leads. 
13 
Q 
All right. Were you aware that during this 
14 
period -- and by this period, I'm talking about the 
15 
investigative period from the time that the case came in in 
16 
mid-2006 --
17 
A 
Right. 
18 
Q 
-- up until May 1 when 
put forth 
19 
her pros memo --
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
-- and proposed indictment. During that sort of 
22 
ten month period, or almost a year, were you aware that 
23 
defense counsel for Epstein were reaching out to 
24 
and to 
to pitch their view of how the 
25 
case --
EFTA00009294

Page 67 
1 
A 
Right. 
2 
Q 
-- should proceed? 
3 
A 
So, I don't have a specific recollection of who 
4 
reached out at what time. I would assume as a general matter 
that defense counsel -- defense counsel were clearly involved 
6 
before the case came to the office. and so, I would assume 
7 
that defense counsel would remain involved while the office 
8 
was investigating. I say that not based on independent 
9 
recollection, but --
10 
11 
12 
Q 
Right. 
A 
-- why would they stop being involved? 
Q 
And is it in your experience as a U.S. Attorney, 
13 
was it common or uncommon for defense counsel to approach the 
14 
line prosecutor and supervisor to make whatever pitch they 
15 
want with respect to a prosecution? 
16 
A 
Fairly common. 
17 
Q 
All right, and was it also common for those 
18 
approaches to be entertained? In other words, for the line 
19 
AUSA and supervisor --
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
-- to meet with defense counsel? 
22 
A 
As a -- as a general matter, yeah. 
23 
Q 
And did you view that as appropriate? 
24 
A 
As a general matter, it was typical. It happened 
25 
before I got there, and is probably happening now. 
EFTA00009295

Page 68 
1 
Q 
And you view it as an appropriate part of the 
2 
process? Do you? 
3 
A 
I think AUSAs need to have discretion to meet with 
4 
defense counsel, and defense counsel certainly should be able 
5 
to present perspectives. 
6 
Q 
There is an outlook -- this is Exhibit 4, and this 
7 
is something --
8
 
Okay. 
9 
Q 
-- it's really sort of a point of information here. 
10 
This is an outlook that shows you and 
and 
had 
11 
a scheduled meeting with Roy Black. 
12 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
13 
Q 
Roy Black, a prominent --
14 
A 
Right. 
15 
Q 
-- local criminal defense attorney at the time in 
16 
the Miami area. This was a meeting scheduled in your office 
17 
for the 23rd of February of 2007. Do you have any -- he was 
18 
a -- he at the time --
19 
A 
Right. 
20 
Q 
-- was one of Epstein's attorneys. Do you have any 
21 
idea whether this meeting related to Epstein or some other 
22 
case? 
23 
A 
I don't. I noticed that and I don't know whether 
24 
it was this or another matter. 
25 
Q 
But you have not particular recollection of meeting 
EFTA00009296

Page 69 
1 
with him on the Epstein matter --
2 
A 
I don't. 
3 
Q 
-- at this time? Okay. So, I want to --
4 
A 
And let me note, I think most of the correspondence 
5 
was from other attorneys and not him. And so, yeah. 
6 
Q 
All right. Are you -- are you okay? Do you want 
7 
to take a short break, or --
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
broken at 11:00. Mr. Acosta, we're going to move to that 
20 
time frame I mentioned a moment ago, May of 2007 when 
21 
submitted her prosecution memo of more than 80 
22 
pages, and her proposed indictment -- her initial proposed 
23 
indictment, which was more than 50 pages. 
24 
She submitted that by transmittal memo to her 
25 
entire chain, 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
Do you --
A 
Let's -- what time is it? Oh, 11:00. 
Q 
Five minutes? 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
Five minutes? 
A 
Yeah. Let's take a five minute break. 
Q 
Off the record. 
(Off the record.) 
BY MS. 
Q 
All right, back on the record at 11:12, having 
EFTA00009297

Page 70 
1 
, and you. Was that a typical way for an indictment 
2 
and proposed prosecution? The memo to come? 
3 
A 
To my recollection, it was not, and I don't recall 
4 
that happening in other cases. I'm trying -- I'm hesitating, 
5 
just because I'm trying to think through if there's -- I 
6 
don't have any recollection of it happening in another case. 
7 
Q 
Why do you think it happened in this case? And who 
8 
caused it to happen? 
9 
A 
I don't know, and I don't know. 
10 
Q 
All right. All right. So, you 
when you 
11 
before you saw it -- I don't know if you even knew about 
12 
it -- you -- by reference to Exhibit 6, you learned 
13 
essentially from 
that the FBI was planning to do 
14 
a press conference two weeks after that, and 
told 
15 
this office has not approved the indictment, 
16 
therefore, "please do not commit us to anything at this 
17 
time." Were you -- and eventually that e-mail chain --
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
-- gets to you, apparently by blind carbon, because 
20 
there's no indication you actually get it. 
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
Q 
But you advise Alicia Valle, who I think was your 
23 
press person --
24 
A 
Correct. 
25 
Q 
-- that, ' 
hasn't even finished her 
EFTA00009298

Page 71 
1 
recommendation 
i.e., we are a long way off." So, 
2 
did you have any idea why the FBI was planning a press 
3 
conference on Epstein? 
4 
A 
I don't -- I don't know if I did. I don't recall 
5 
if I did. 
6 
Q 
Was it -- how typical was it for the FBI to plan a 
7 
press conference on an indicted -- on a case that was being 
8 
indicted at the time of an indictment or arrest without 
9 
coordinating that with you and your office? 
10 
A 
Under 
highly atypical. 
11 
Q 
He was the SAC at the time? 
12 
A 
He was the SAC -- he was the SAC -- I know he was 
13 
the SAC at the time as of September, and I'm almost certain 
14 
he was the SAC at the time. 
15 
Q 
All right. And when you said that we are a long 
16 
way off, and 
hasn't even finished her recommendation to 
17 
, can -- do you know whether you had any idea that she 
18 
had actually submitted her pros memo, and that she had made a 
19 
recommendation to 
20 
A 
I can't -- I can't recollect --
21 
Q 
Okay. 
22 
A 
-- but I'll take my words as reflective of, if I 
23 
say she hasn't finished her recommendation, then I assume she 
24 
hasn't finished her recommendation, but I don't recall --
25 
Q 
Does that mean --
EFTA00009299

Page 72 
1 
A 
-- that level of detail. 
2 
Q 
-- as you -- as you look at your own words, does 
3 
that suggest to you that you were unaware as of that moment 
4 
that she'd actually submitted her pros memo? 
5 
A 
That suggests that I would not have been aware that 
6 
she submitted it. If -- you know, because it sounds like I'm 
7 
saying she hasn't even submitted her memo to 
So --
8 
Q 
All right. 
9 
A 
-- we're a long way off. 
10 
Q 
All right, so, is --
11 
A 
But again, this is based on practice, not 
12 
recollection. 
13 
Q 
All right, and when you said we are a long way off, 
14 
did that reflect, if you recall, an assessment of the length 
15 
of time to get to a pros --
16 
A 
Right. 
17 
Q 
-- memo, a recommendation, and an assessment of 
18 
that, or your expectation that even when you saw a pros memo
19 
and an indictment, it would be a long process before it was 
20 
approved? 
21 
A 
So, I would assume -- and again, this is just based 
22 
on speculating from the way that I write, that I'm thinking 
23 
she hasn't submitted her recommendation to 
needs 
24 
to review it. 
25 
He may -- you know, he'd probably want to talk to 
EFTA00009300

Page 73 
1 
. It needs to be scrubbed. You know, this could be --
2 
this ain't happening next week. 
3 
Q 
All right, but in your -- do you have any reason to 
4 
believe that whatever that process is that you were 
5 
describing would be any -- any different in any particular 
6 
measure in this case from the ordinary complex case? 
7 
A 
So, from my language, I would take that it's the 
8 
same process, but that there is a process, and the process 
9 
hasn't yet been followed. 
10 
Q 
All right. Okay. 
11 
A 
So, it would be the typical process in a typical 
12 
complex case. 
13 
Q 
All right, and is it fair to characterize this as a 
14 
relatively complex case, given the legal issues? 
15 
A 
I think it is, yes. 
16 
Q 
Okay. In Exhibit 8, you actually got the 
in 
17 
Exhibit 7, you see that in the bottom part of that that you 
18 
received a copy of the pros memo on the second page of that 
19 
exhibit at the top. 
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
is forwarding to you the pros memo. 
22 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
In Exhibit 8, you see that 
is 
24 
forwarding or sending to that chain, excluding 
25 
, that is, 
and you, additional 
EFTA00009301

Page 74 
1 
items in Operation Leap Year, and that's a summary of the 
2 
indictment, and evidence regarding the individual victims. 
3 
Okay? So, as of May 11, you had before you the pros memo, 
4 
the proposed indictment, and this substantial amount of 
5 
additional --
6 
A 
Right. 
7 
Q 
-- information. Did you read the pros memo? 
8 
A 
Right. So, I don't recall -- and I know you're 
9 
going to say, why don't I, but this was a long time ago. I 
10 
don't recall if I read it, or if I went back to the office 
11 
and sat down with 
and 
and went over it. I can't 
12 
recall from this far. I can say that it looks based on this 
13 
that I was at the U.S. Attorney's conference. 
14 
Q 
Mm-hmm, 
15 
A 
The idea of printing this out on a hotel printer, I 
16 
wouldn't -- I can't believe I would have printed this out on 
17 
a hotel printer. 
18 
Q 
Let alone read it on an airplane, correct? 
19 
A 
Let alone read it on an airplane. That just 
20 
wouldn't --
21 
Q 
Right. 
22 
A 
-- have been my practice. 
23 
Q 
But going back -- arriving back --
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- to your office, was it your practice to take 
EFTA00009302

Page 75 
1 
voluminous documents like this and go through them yourself, 
2 
or did you rely on your senior staff? 
3 
A 
I would typically rely on senior staff. They --
4 
they're the experienced ones that have seen these matters 
5 
before. They would go through it. We'd sit down. We'd talk 
6 
about the issues. We might have it in front of us, almost 
7 
like you've got all those 
Q 
Okay. 
9 
A 
-- binders there, but you know, you're calling my 
10 
attention to particular issues, and we'd sort of talk it 
11 
through. 
12 
Q 
And do you recall doing that in this case? 
13 
A 
I recall having discussions with senior staff about 
14 
this case. 
15 
Q 
Who? 
16 
A 
Certainly 
and 
at various points, and 
17 
I can't say that I did that in May versus April versus June. 
18 
I can't give you 
19 
Q 
All right. 
20 
A 
-- timelines. 
21 
Q 
Well, we're talking now about May. 
22 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
Because you've got the actual --
24 
A 
Yeah. 
25 
Q 
-- process. 
EFTA00009303

Page 76 
1 
A 
It would have been my practice based on this to go 
2 
back and discuss it, and so based on my practiced, I would 
3 
have gone back and likely discussed it. I doubt I would have 
4 
printed this out at whatever hotel I was at. 
5 
Q 
But even when you got back to the office, would you 
6 
have had somebody print it out so you would've had it 
7 
available? 
8 
A 
I may have had someone print it out so it's 
9 
available. I may have focused on particular parts of it. 
10 
Q 
What kinds of issues would you have focused on? In 
11 
other words -- in other words, some might go straight to the 
12 
facts. 
13 
A 
Right. 
14 
Q 
Some might be interested in the legal theories. 
15 
What was -- what was your approach? 
16 
A 
So, I think that depended on the case. 
17 
Q 
Okay. 
18 
A 
Here, you had legal questions, and you also had --
19 
had witness issues, and I would think those would have been 
20 
the two primary areas. 
21 
Q 
Would you have gone through the indictment and the 
22 
pros memo and all of those other materials, or just relied on 
23 
your experience seeing your people, 
and 
24 
A 
As a general practice, probably some combination. 
25 
As a general -- a general recollection, the concerns in this 
EFTA00009304

Page 77 
1 
case weren't about the sordid details of what happened, 
2 
because we believed he did what he did. The concerns were 
3 
about some of the legal issues around it, and some of the 
4 
issues in terms of testimony. 
5 
Q 
Of the victims? 
6 
A 
Of the victims. 
7 
Q 
All right. On page --
8 
A 
And I say that because that would have been what I 
9 
would naturally focus on as opposed to reading the sordid 
10 
details, because I think everyone believed the victims. 
11 
Q 
All right. Exhibit 9 is an e-mail that you are not 
12 
on, but that -- notes that 
is advising 
that 
13 
you, 
, "Has your memo and Lefcourt's letter." Gerald 
14 
Lefcourt was --
15 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
16 
Q 
-- a New York attorney who was one of the members 
17 
of the Epstein defense team. Did you know him? 
18 
A 
I did not. 
19 
Q 
Did you ever encounter him as far as you recall? 
20 
A 
I did not. 
21 
Q 
All right. He had, according to the documents we 
22 
have, made two substantial submissions to 
and 
23 
in --
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- February of that year in an effort to dissuade 
EFTA00009305

Page 78 
1 
them from pursuing a prosecution, and we have every reason to 
2 
believe and no reason not to believe that that's what is 
3 
being referred to. Do you recall reviewing substantial 
4 
submissions from defense counsel at this time attacking in 
5 
very granular detail --
6
 
Mm-hmm. 
7 
Q 
-- the credibility of the witnesses, and so on? 
8 
A 
I don't recall reviewing those. Again, I recall 
9 
discussions with my senior team about issues that included 
10 
the credibility, and I'm not sure if it's -- credibility is 
11 
the right word, but how the victims would do on the stands. 
12 
Q 
Okay, and who do you recall talking to you about 
13 
that? 
14 
A 
So, some combination of 
and 
would have 
15 
bene the likely -- I recall the discussion. I don't recall 
16 
whether it was 
, or whether it was 
or 
but the 
17 
logical inference would have been it would have been some 
18 
combination of 
and 
19 
Q 
has told us that during this period, he 
20 
was not actively involved in this case --
21 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
22 
Q 
-- but that 
was. Would that be 
23 
consistent with your memory, or would --
24 
A 
That -- sure, it -- I mean, they were a team. They 
25 
became more or less involved based on needs. 
EFTA00009306

Page 79 
1 
Q 
And was there any particular -- if We EMI 
was 
2 
working with you directly on reporting 
3 
A 
Right. 
4 
Q 
-- on his assessment of this case, was there any 
5 
reason for Mi 
to be involved? 
6 
A 
I might bounce ideas off him. I mean, he was 
he 
7 
was right across, so we worked closely, but you know, 
8 
was the criminal chief, and if he was in the weeds, 
, I 
9 
would speculate would sort of, much like me, defer to his 
10 
judgement, because they've known each other, and they've 
11 
worked together, and they had a good working relationship. 
12 
Q 
And is it -- do we understand correctly that as 
13 
first  
tant, 
had a brief that really encompassed 
14 
the entire office? 
15 
A 
He did. 
16 
Q 
All right. 
17 
A 
He -- so, he supervised the civil, the criminal, 
18 
the appellate, and the forfeiture. 
19 
Q 
All right. There is here in this e-mail that you 
20 
did not see back in the day, Exhibit 9, a pushback from 
21 
regarding the rush that 
is in to 
22 
pursue the case, and he says, "This is obviously a Very 
23 
significant case, and Alex wants to take his time making sure 
24 
he is comfortable before proceeding." Do you -- can you tell 
25 
us what the basis would be for, or was, for that assertion by 
EFTA00009307

Page ".7.;. 
2 
A 
So, I can't -- well, I can't tell you from 
3 
recollection what the basis is. I can -- I can speculate 
4 
that the materials being transmitted Friday morning -- oh, I 
5 
guess it was -- yeah, so --
6 
Q 
The 11th. 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
Friday. 
9 
A 
So, Friday morning, it hasn't been reviewed by 
10 
anyone in the management chain, much less approved and 
11 
edited, and 
that Monday is saying why don't I have a 
12 
decision? 
13 
And -- and so, absent truly extenuating 
14 
circumstances, typically, you'd have -- give -- you know, 
15 
it'd go through the management chain up to the U.S. Attorney. 
16 
And so, he's pushing back, saying, hey, it's been a day, or 
17 
it's been a weekend. I'm --
18 
Q 
Right. 
19 
A 
-- I'm just reading between the lines here. 
20 
Q 
Who had authority to sign off on the Epstein 
21 
prosecution? To, say, indict? 
22 
A 
So, as a delegated matter, 
had 
23 
signature authority. 
24 
Q 
Me 
-hmm. 
25 
A 
As did -- as did 
, as did 
EFTA00009308

Page 81 
1 
obviously I did. As a practice matter, this is something 
2 
that would have gone through the chain, and that we would 
3 
have then discussed. 
4 
Q 
But why up at your level? Is it because it is, as 
5 
says, "Obviously a very significant case?" 
6 
A 
So, at my level, not only because of the facts, 
7 
because it's not about the facts, but I do think that there 
8 
are legal issues that -- that implicated policy, that -- that 
9 
we were thinking through. 
0 
Q 
And what were -- what were the legal issues, and 
11 
what were the policy issues? 
12 
A 
So -- so, the legal issues, and also factual issues 
13 
in terms of the witnesses. So, the legal issues 
so, and 
14 
there's an e-mail from 
based on the -- you know, the 
5 
contemporaneous record that alludes to some of this. In my 
16 
experience at the civil rights division, trafficking cases 
17 
involved -- you know, I can -- I can describe some -- some 
1 8 
horrific cases of girls being held against their will, you 
19 
know. 
20 
You had child pornography matters with young women, 
21 
sometimes incredibly young, that the office prosecuted. As 
22 
the trafficking laws were being developed, there was a lot o 
23 
discussion about, what's the difference between trafficking 
24 
and solicitation, and that discussion took place as the 
25 
trafficking laws were being developed. And so, this 
EFTA00009309

Page 82 
1 
implicated that, and it implicated the -- what is local and 
2 
what is federal. 
3 
Q 
All right. So, in the first, you're talking -- in 
4 
the first category, you're talking about the individual 
5 
charges that had been -- that were being proposed, which 
6 
included both trafficking and coercion and enticement -- or, 
7 
enticement. 
8 
A 
Correct. 
9 
Q 
All right. And in the latter, you felt that -- did 
10 
you 
to what extent did the witness -- victim witness kind 
11 
of credibility issues implicate policy? 
12 
A 
So -- so, I think I said policy and victim in that. 
13 
Q 
All right. 
14 
A 
In that there was certainly discussion between me 
15 
and my management about concerns as to how these victims 
16 
would sort of stand up in court. 
17 
Q 
So, what would have -- what would make you 
18 
comfortable before -- before proceeding? What would make 
19 
you -- what at that point would have made you comfortable 
20 
about proceeding? 
21 
A 
So, I think that at this point, I don't think it's 
22 
what would or would not have made me comfortable, and I'm 
23 
speculating here. I think it's, it came in on Friday, let's 
24 
talk this through. 
25 
Q 
But there -- but you've just identified for us 
EFTA00009310

Page 83 
1 
issues that --
2 
A 
Issues that --
3
 
-- in your mind 
4 
A 
-- we would have --
5 
Q 
-- had to be resolved. 
6 
A 
-- wanted to talk through. 
7 
Q 
All right. Okay. At that point, did you -- to 
8 
your recollection, have any doubt that some form of 
9 
indictment or charging instrument against Epstein was likely 
10 
to be -- become viable? 
11 
A 
So, I don't -- it was a case that I thought it very 
12 
important that we do something. How that something played 
13 
out, I think had all along been a matter of discussion. 
14 
Q 
As something other than what the U.S. Attorney's 
15 
Office does, which is prosecute? 
16 
A 
Well -- well, no, I mean, what the U.S. Attorney's 
17 
Office does is ensure that justice is served. 
18 
Q 
Right. 
19 
A 
And whether -- and in partnership with state 
20 
attorneys, and sometimes that means state attorneys take the 
21 
lead. Sometimes that means the U.S. Attorney's Office takes 
22 
the lead, and it -- and a lot of times, we actually had, you 
23 
know, we -- we would share staff, because sometimes it made 
24 
sense for -- you know, for one part of the other to take the 
25 
lead. 
EFTA00009311

Page 84 
1 
So, writ large, I thought throughout it was very 
2 
important that something happen. There were these concerns 
3 
all along. I can speculate that this is just a reflection of 
4 
those continuing concerns. 
5 
Q 
As expressed by you to 
in the ordinary 
course? 
7 
A 
As developed as a group throughout this -- I can 
so, if we go back to -- what was the Exhibit? 
Q 
June of -- June of 2006. 
A 
So, Exhibit 3, 
says, "In that meeting, I 
summarized the case and the state attorney's office handling 
12 
it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect 
13 
evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time 
14 
and money that would be required for an investigation." And 
15 
so, as far back as that initial meeting, there is the 
16 
discussion about the federal nexus, and is this a state or a 
17 
federal --
18 
Q 
Right. 
19 
A 
-- case? 
20 
Q 
All right. Exhibit 7 is an early e-mail from= 
21 
to you. Early, meaning it proceeds the one --
22 
A 
Correct-. 
23 
Q 
-- we just looked at, and early in that it's right 
24 
as you're 
25 
A 
5 
EFTA00009312

Page 85 
1 
Q 
-- receiving the pros memo, and you ask him, have 
2 
you read the memo? And curious why you 
3 
rather than 
4 
ask MI 
A 
I don't recall. I can -- I can speculate, and I 
5 
have two thoughts that I'll speculate. One is, ME 
her 
6 
direct supervisor. 
7 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
8 
9 
A 
And I might be thinking --
Q 
Second line supervisor. 
10 
A 
Her second line supervisor, so why is 
sending 
11 
me this? 
, have you read this? I.e., did you jump the 
12 
chain? Secondly, I think it 
I may have wanted to have 
13 
multiple opinions on this. 
14 
Q 
Ms-hmm. 
15 
A 
It's most likely that I had talked to 
16 
already, because 
and I talked more often, and I'm asking 
17 
another person in the management chain, hey, what do you 
18 
think? Let's have multiple opinions on the table here. 
19 
Q 
Well, this is the first time other than 
that 
20 
we see you getting a recommendation. 
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
Q 
When 
says, he thinks that you should 
23 
charge him -- you, the office, should charge Epstein. He has 
24 
issues with the charging strategy proposed by 
but 
25 
one, he says, "We all need to get on the same page as to 
EFTA00009313

Page 86 
1 
whether the statute's covered the conduct, and whether the 
2 
conduct is the type we should charge. I think the answer to 
3 
both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the 
4 
statutes." He proposes that the office start with a 
5 
complaint, which is not unusual, is it? 
6 
7 
A 
It -- it happens, yes. 
Q 
All right, which allows the defendant to be 
8 
arrested, and ideally detained, and then the defendant is 
9 
then highly motivated or incentivized --
10 
11 
12 
what 
A 
Okay. 
Q 
-- to work a pre-indictment resolution. That's 
is proposing. He also notes that it's 
13 
important to -- in his view, to "cap him with conspiracy 
14 
counts to make a plea attractive," and the court could give 
15 
us a hard time with that if we had to dismiss indicted 
16 
counts. 
17 
A 
Right. 
18 
Q 
Okay. The proposed indictment included one 
19 
conspiracy -- a conspiracy that has a five year 
20 
A 
Five year cap. 
21 
Q 
-- statutory maximum, and this notion is that 
22 
Epstein be charged with a five-year conspiracy count, and 
23 
take it from there. Do you know what he was referring to 
24 
when he noted that a court could give you a hard time in 
25 
dismissing indicted counts in this case? 
EFTA00009314

Page 87 
1 
A 
So -- so, as a typical matter, once there's an 
2 
indictment, the -- a pre-indictment -- well, by definition, a 
3 
pre-indictment resolution comes off the table, but in cases 
4 
of this nature, the resolutions tend to happen before 
5 
indictment, because once the indictment is done, at least in 
6 
South Florida, dismissal of charges -- for example, if -- you 
7 
know, if 
is saying, let's think about a 371 with a five 
8 
year cap a rule 11 --
9 
Q 
Mm-hem. 
10 
A 
-- that's something that South Florida judges, they 
11 
tend not to -- you know, dismissing a number of counts, and 
12 
then doing a rule 11 is not something that judges tend to do. 
13 
Q 
All right. Two -- two pieces to that. One is --
14 
A 
Okay. 
15 
Q 
-- the issue of dismissing substantive --
16 
A 
Right. 
17 
Q 
-- counts -- substantive counts. Is that -- was 
18 
that a particular concern in this case because of the nature 
19 
of the conduct represented in the --
20 
A 
So --
21 
Q 
-- substantive counts? 
22 
A 
-- so, so, your question -- you asked a general 
23 
question, and then now you're moving to a 
24 
Q 
Right. 
25 
A 
-- specific. As a general matter, not just in this 
EFTA00009315

Page 88 
1 
case, but in other cases, it is -- it was rare that the 
2 
office after an -- in cases like this, after a full charge 
3 
was done, that that substantive counts were dismissed. So, 
4 
for example, in the public corruption cases that I referenced 
5 
earlier out of Palm Beach, those were all negotiated pre-
6 
indictment, and agreed to, and then by the time the -- the 
7 
case was indicted, it was all -- it was all sort of set on 
8 
auto-pilot. 
9 
Q 
So, typically, in my experience, the -- a 
10 
disposition like that is -- results in a criminal 
11 
information, not an indictment. 
12 
A 
Correct, and --
13 
Q 
Are you saying that you would go ahead and indict 
14 
then? 
15 
A 
No, no, no, what I'm saying is that they were -- it 
16 
was all negotiated in advance, and then there was an 
17 
information --
18 
Q 
Oh, okay. 
19 
A 
-- and the information would go forward, not an 
20 
indictment. 
21 
Q 
All right. 
22 
A 
And so, that is how a number of high profile cases 
23 
typically proceeded, as opposed to indict and dismiss. 
24 
Q 
And that is the experience of the Southern District 
25 
of Florida in general? 
EFTA00009316

Page 89 
1 
A 
It -- it was in particularly the Palm Beach office 
2 
with other high profile cases that were there at the time. 
3 
Q 
Do you recall any case in which a judge in an 
4 
indicted case refused to dismiss counts when the 
5 
government --
6 
7 
8 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
-- in an indictment under those circumstances? 
A 
I don't recall specific cases, but I can -- I can 
9 
say that typically in the higher profile cases you'd 
10 
negotiated with opposing counsel, presenting information. 
11 
The information would have agreed to an agreed to guideline, 
12 
and it would proceed in that way. 
13 
Q 
Understood, but in this case, I'm focusing on the 
14 
assertion by 
that the court could give us a hard 
15 
time, and that's a little different from, you know, 
16 
exercising discretion to negotiate and proceed by 
17 
information. So, is there any judge that -- that was 
18 
particularly concerning with regard to an unwillingness to --
19 
A 
20 
Q 
-- dismiss? 
21 
A 
I don't -- so, first, this is 12 years ago, and I 
22 
don't recall any specific judge, but I can -- I can sort of 
23 
that say that was not the practice of the office. The 
24 
practice of the office was to proceed by information rather 
25 
than indictment with dismissal, because there is more --
EFTA00009317

Page 9C 
1 
there is -- there -- you can -- you can -- you can lay out 
2 
more what you've negotiated. I think later there's a letter 
3 
from.. that sort of presents the same perspective. 
4 
Q 
All right. In --
5 
MS. 
One moment? 
6 
MS. 
: Go ahead. 
THE WITNESS: Yeah. 
8 
BY MS. a: 
Q 
You said in cases of this nature, the resolution 
10 
happens before indicting. What is the -- this cases of this 
nature? 
A 
Higher profile. Higher profile cases. 
13 
Q 
So, not necessarily sex offense cases? 
14 
A 
Not necessarily sex offense, no, no, no, higher --
15 
higher profile cases where --
16 
Q 
And this made -- this was a higher profile case 
17 
because --
18 
A 
This was a -- just, a -- so, I would say it's a 
19 
combination of all of the above, and to my mind, one of 
20 
the -- one of the parts of this case is the legal theories 
21 
were, if not novel, they were novel within the Southern 
22 
District of Florida. At least, some of the legal theories, 
23 
and I -- we'll probably get into that. 
24 
Q 
Did his wealth make it a high profile case? 
25 
A 
Well, it was clearly in the paper. And so, that 
EFTA00009318

Page 91 
1 
made it a high profile case. I don't think it -- I don't 
2 
think it was his wealth. I think it was all of the above. 
3 
This was a matter that the state attorney had been ready to 
4 
charge that the federal government is now jumping into and 
S 
saying, by its presence, that the state did not do enough. 
6 
That in and of itself makes it a very high profile 
7 
case. I can't remember any other instance, certainly during 
8 
my time, when we jumped in and said, you know, the state 
9 
dropped charges, and so we are going to do more. 
10 
BY MS. 
11 
Q 
As opposed to, or as distinguished from what you'd 
12 
described a few moments ago, a situation in which the federal 
13 
authorities and the state authorities kind of worked together 
14 
to sort out what would be charged, where, and do it 
15 
cooperatively? 
16 
A 
And that was more cooperative, and I --
17 
Q 
Right. 
18 
A 
i would -- you know, I do recollect that -- and 
19 
I think the record bears this out, that this was not a 
20 
particularly cooperative relationship between us and the 
21 
state attorney. 
22 
Q 
Mm-hmm. Yes, we will get to that. Were you --
23 
A 
If I could -- if I could return, I think your 
24 
question -- the way you posed your question, you said a 
25 
recommendation from 
, and let me -- let me push back a 
EFTA00009319

Page 92 
1 
little bit on that. 
2 
Saying what are your thoughts? Have you read it, 
3 
what are your thoughts? And he says, yes, we can talk next 
4 
week, my current thoughts are 
is very different than, 
5 
we've sat down, we've discussed this, this is my now informed 
6 
position. 
7 
Q 
Understood, and I -- I should have been clearer. I 
8 
was referring to his recommendation that if you were going to 
9 
proceed, you should start with a --
10 
11 
12 
13 
I 4 
15 
16 
17 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- complaint. 
A 
Right. 
Q 
Just to be clear. 
A 
And I'm just saying --
Q 
Okay. 
A 
-- initial thoughts are -- yeah. 
Q 
All right. So, were you aware that 
18 
bootlegged a copy of the pros memo to 
at 
CEOS? 
20 
22 
23
Q 
Q 
He did at that time. 
A 
0k:Fcf. 
And did you -- did you know 
A 
A little bit. I certainly knew of him. 
Q 
Had you encountered him when -- he was the chief of 
EFTA00009320

Page 93 
1 
the child exploitation and obscenities section 
2 
A 
Right. 
3 
Q 
in the criminal division here, correct? Had you 
4 
encountered him while you were in this building also? 
5 
A 
Most likely. I knew of him enough that the 
6 
correspondence shows -- and I recall asking to involve him 
7 
pretty early on. 
8 
Q 
So, it does read as if you were acquainted with 
9 
him. 
10 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
All right. And did you have any -- did his 
12 
opinion, his views as chief of CEOS and as 
3 
who had been an AUSA --
14 
A 
Right. 
15 
Q 
A 
In Miami. 
Q 
-- Miami, did his views have influence on your 
8 
thinking about this case? 
19 
A 
I don't think at this time I was aware that 
20 
had been consulted. 
21 
Q 
All right, and in July, just so you know, and I --
22 
and this is not something you saw -- he provided a fairly 
23 
strong statement to -- by e-mail to 
and 
24 
in which he advises that he reviewed the pros memo 
25 
closely. 
EFTA00009321

Page 94 
1 
It's terrific. He says 
did a terrific job, 
2 
and he says, "we agree with her legal analysis. Her charging 
3 
decisions are legally sound," and then 
goes 
4 
through the different statutes, and concludes that they are 
5 
all properly charged, and that although there are some 
6 
issues, legally, that in his view we should, "We should 
7 
prevail." "Our position should prevail." 
8 
And that he also reviewed the arguments contained 
9 
in the letters from defense counsel, and he found none of 
10 
their arguments persuasive. So, at least as of July 18, 
11 
your --
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- three levels of supervisors down were on notice 
14 
that CEOS was on board and wanted to --
15 
A 
Right. 
16 
Q 
see the case move forward, but is it -- am I 
17 
correct in understanding that at that time, you were unaware 
18 
of that? 
19 
A 
I do not recall being aware of that. 
20 
Q 
All right. Okay. If you had been aware of it, if 
21 
they had sent this --
22 
A 
Yeah. 
23 
Q 
-- pretty -- I don't want to overstate it, but it 
24 
is a pretty strong endorsement of the proposed prosecution, 
25 
would you have been influenced by that? 
EFTA00009322

Page 95 
1 
A 
Sure, I would have. I mean, I -- I respected MI, 
2 
and clearly wanted him to be part of the team, and later 
3 
invited him down, and so, yes. 
4 
Q 
Okay. All right. Do you know why they wouldn't 
have shared -- your people wouldn't have shared this with 
6 
you? 
A 
I can't -- I don't know. 
8 
Q 
All right. So, when -- as far -- based on the 
9 
briefings that you got at -- in this time period when there 
10 
was an effort to try to figure out --
11 
A 
Right. 
12 
Q 
-- what you were going to do, were there any issues 
13 
of concern of fact or evidence or the charges that were left 
14 
unaddressed? In other words, if there were issues about 
15 
victim credibility, were steps being taken to address those? 
16 
A 
Unaddressed is a -- again, it -- it's a very 
17 
binary, and it's not about addressed versus unaddressed. And 
18 
so, let me -- let me sort of come at it, if I can try to 
19 
get -- there were concerns around some legal issues. There 
20 
were concerns about how the victims would do when put on the 
21 
stand. 
22 
Q 
Right. 
23 
A 
As a general matter, we thought there was enough if 
24 
we had to go forward, we could, as an ethical matter, go 
25 
forward. That doesn't mean that there was not value in a 
EFTA00009323

Page 96 
1 
pre-indictment resolution. 
2 
And so, here, you havellIII, based on this Exhibit 
3 
7, saying, we need to get on the same page as to what to 
4 
charge, pre-indictment resolution, cap him with conspiracy 
5 
count to make up the attractive. 
6 
So, a five year cap, something less than five 
7 
years, you have
 in her affidavit that was submitted to 
8 
the court saying she favored a pre-indictment resolution. 
9 
And so, it's not a, have you addressed everything, yes or no, 
10 
as opposed to putting all of this, how do we --
11 
Q 
All right. 
12 
A 
-- how do we move forward? 
13 
Q 
Right, but there is a binary point here, and that 
14 
is, you either indict or you don't indict. You either 
15 
present an indictment to the grand jury, or you don't, right? 
16 
That's a decision. Right? 
17 
A 
So, I would -- I would actually push back in that 
18 
in many cases, it's not quite that binary. In many cases, 
19 
you sit down with opposing counsel and say, look, we can go 
20 
to a grand jury, and we can present this indictment and 
21 
indict, or we can resolve this now. If we resolve this now, 
22 
this is the path that can go forward. Alternatively, we can 
23 
go here. And so, it's not an A versus B. 
24 
Q 
I understand that nuance, but the decision to 
25 
indict does -- I mean, you either indict or you don't. If 
EFTA00009324

Page 97 
1 
you don't indict, it's for any number of reasons. If under 
2 
these circumstances, the choices that are available are you 
3 
have a case that's been brought in -- taken in from --
4 
A 
Right. 
5 
Q 
-- the state. You can -- you can decline it. Send 
6 
it back to the state, make it go away, whatever. 
7 
A 
Right. 
8 
Q 
We're not interested. You can indict. You can 
9 
indict and go to trial. These are the subcategories. Or you 
10 
can indict and have the defendant plead to the indictment, or 
11 
you can indict and work a post-indictment plea deal, which 
12 
raises the issues you talked about, or you can negotiate 
13 
an -- or you can charge -- proceed by complaint, and do as 
14 
was suggesting --
15 
A 
Right. 
16 
Q 
-- work a pre-indictment but post charge 
17 
disposition, or you can work a pre-charge disposition, right? 
18 
I mean, that's really --
19 
A 
So, so --
20 
Q 
That's the parade of possibles. 
21 
A 
Sure, but that's more than indictment or don't 
22 
indict. That's six or seven options. 
23 
Q 
I understand that. That's how it will play out, 
24 
but the decision as to whether to indict is binary. You're 
25 
either indicting or you're not indicting. The -- the act of 
EFTA00009325

Page 98 
1 
indicting is a -- is something that either happens or doesn't 
2 
happen. That's all I'm saying. 
3 
A 
Sure. 
4 
Q 
Okay? So, what I'm getting at is, with respect to 
5 
the indictment -- so, as you're looking at this case, 
6 
you're -- it sounds as if you're doing sort of one analytical 
7 
track, which is, what do we do with this case? The other 
8 
piece of that, and a track that could have been followed 
9 
exclusively is, what do we need to do to get an indictment 
10 
that is legally sound and evidentiary -- evidentiarily solid? 
11 
I'd like to focus on that track --
12 
A 
Okay. 
13 
Q 
-- because they're not unrelated. 
14 
A 
Sure. 
15 
Q 
If you never get down the, do we have a viable 
16 
indictment road, then you're not going to be able to do 
17 
anything in the other 
18 
A 
Sure. 
19 
Q 
-- road. So, at this point, you had identified, 
20 
and you collectively -- you and your people had identified 
21 
some witness -- victim witness issues, and some legal issues. 
22 
My question is, were steps being taken to -- i used -- I used 
23 
the term address --
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- let me -- let me clarify, with respect to the 
EFTA00009326

e , 
1 
witnesses, was the FBI and the line attorney with the 
2 
assistance perhaps of the grand jury, taking steps to 
3 
corroborate --
4 
A 
Right. 
5 
Q 
-- shore up victim witness testimony, find new 
6 
victims, find additional evidence, and so on? 
7 
A 
So -- so, taking that in part is helpful. So, with 
8 
respect to the witness issues, I recall, and 
goes into 
9 
much more detail in her affidavit, but I recall concerns that 
10 
were communicated to me about, in essence, to sort of 
11 
summarize my impression or recollection, these girls are 
12 
young. 
13 
They're impressionable. They are scared. Will 
14 
they stand up in court? There are any number of -- there's 
15 
any number of things that could be used against them. Some 
16 
of them are -- and this is uncomfortable, but some of them 
17 
thought he actually cared for them, and that's not atypical 
18 
in these cases where they -- they sort of develop thoughts 
19 
that are wrong, but -- but they are what they are, and were 
20 
actually saying he did nothing wrong, and because many of 
21 
them knew one another, how would that all play out? 
22 
Q 
Right. 
23 
A 
And so, it would be my assumption, particularly 
24 
given, you know, how much work 
was doing on this 
25 
case -- Ms. 
was doing on this case -- that she, in 
EFTA00009327

Page 100 
1 
combination with the FBI, would be pursuing those matters, 
2 
and looking to develop the evidence and corroborate, and 
3 
throughout this process, it would have been my assumption and 
4 
hope that she was continuing to develop the facts, because 
5 
that can only help. 
6 
Q 
And so as U.S. Attorney, would it indeed have been 
7 
your expectation? 
8 
A 
Yes. 
9 
Q 
And the expectation that her -- that all those 
10 
interim supervisors would have been supporting her and 
11 
encouraging her and guiding her? 
12 
A 
It would have been, and that -- that's what happens 
13 
in typical cases. 
14 
Q 
Right. 
15 
A 
Just because we're having a legal discussion 
16 
doesn't mean you stop pursuing leads. 
17 
Q 
All right. Let me stick with the evidence piece of 
18 
that. 
19 
A 
Yeah. 
20 
Q 
I'm going to keep these --
21 
A 
Helpful. 
22 
Q 
-- strains going. You got a very detailed 
23 
accounting in -- reflected in Exhibit 8 from 
of the 
24 
different Jane Does, and there were a lot of them, and there 
25 
were -- there were many counts in the indictment, and many 
EFTA00009328

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Size: 130 x 14 pixels

Surrounding text: Behalf of the Department

Size: 42 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: artment of Ju

Size: 57 x 13 pixels

Size: 35 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: IIII

Size: 21 x 12 pixels

Size: 36 x 13 pixels

Size: 137 x 14 pixels

Size: 137 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: Department of Justice

Size: 50 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: washington,

Size: 21 x 12 pixels

Size: 95 x 22 pixels

Surrounding text: Washington, D.C.

Size: 56 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: EXAM MS. : would you tell L

Size: 56 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. HERRON: Yes, MS. : H H MR. HERRON: Corr

Size: 30 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: , m essional

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. HERRON: Corr MS. : T I am a counsel

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. . I Responsibilit

Size: 75 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: of Justice, and w , an oom at the Departmen

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: with me and ent of

Size: 62 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the Department of , conference room at

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: are my fello . W Justice main

Size: 49 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Before we st Mr. wor

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Co MR. : : I

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Oh MR. : A ints for a press

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: 14 MR. : Y : Y THE WITNESS: Pr

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: WITNESS: Probab MS. : right. Thank yo

Size: 57 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: years, as we u fir in J

Size: 32 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: 1

Size: 38 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: fi in sed from the C

Size: 44 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: recused fro

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: You know, I hen cam im chief, an

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: uncement was ma as

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: announcemen ing :

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: October 2006 as ght.

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: in Octobe and Right.

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: as a first a

Size: 39 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: changes you had first assistan

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: terstand, been fun was first assistan

Size: 19 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: nderstand ile been firs

Size: 58 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: assistant whi and had and

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: had be cam was formerly

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: and til he was f

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: there was to high lev

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 5 et 6 said high 1

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ertainly a to , an changes, my

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: certainly Mr. changes

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: great OII Mr. stant, and

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: office was and I

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: cni pr I think h

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I think

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ed. I thi

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ? H relationship

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: of king relatio

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and

Size: 26 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: ted ective

Size: 38 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: also, as we P as he served for

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: You also, eed and he ser

Size: 45 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 10 o to 1 October of

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Q All ri ? A Outsta

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 A or 0

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 6 you know 7 is 8 most act

Size: 26 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: Page of rly working

Size: 57 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: K 2 sor 3 with you?

Size: 36 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: sitive. You k Mr. ,bu on the same

Size: 37 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: was he rel wit

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: chief, was rom

Size: 24 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: would bring 4M , 07 - V

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: them bring to an ight both wa

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: into my of ugh bef when he woul

Size: 57 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: focused on inter as rrect.

Size: 31 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: -- focuse Correct.

Size: 31 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: the line now sessment of

Size: 57 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: attorney on t an her capabilit

Size: 43 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: work and some C ize :

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: a good, str :

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: she was a go

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: wor and aga

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and th

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: an

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and - th

Size: 57 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : MS. : I MR. HERRON: -- a

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ccurate. MS. : I to refresh an ex

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: documents. MS. : Y MR. HERRON: And

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. HERRON: And MS. : T : T

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: office? How did MS. : was -- how did i

Size: 30 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: the earlies hat is Ms.

Size: 37 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: the material t Mr. tel policy waiver

Size: 56 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: hat is Ms. is consistent wi

Size: 56 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: case first

Size: 31 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: So, hen the case

Size: 38 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: spoken to many pre

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: and spoken and

Size: 37 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: -- or, in y to A Right

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: nox A A

Size: 31 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: Do you rom

Size: 57 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 2 recall anythi 3 ? 4 A I

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and ringing this all

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: in bringing

Size: 43 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: ant pressure tha

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 4 Q was 6 might be b

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and I as S sai to E

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: again, you k and was outcome was

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: -- but ag ing , an ultimate O

Size: 38 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: Exhibit 2, thi , th copyin

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: to Exhibit by

Size: 38 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: riginal forwar an en

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: the original ing between

Size: 57 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: cop ates to a dust up

Size: 31 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: to you by rom ly relates to

Size: 37 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: and it and her workload,

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: een and her wo

Size: 57 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: sentially relates ove the first paragr

Size: 32 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: essential 4 in the fi

Size: 32 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: Page 40 ith

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: bout the Eps was : sa

Size: 31 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: was : sai new what has

Size: 24 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: the U.S. Att ith abo the green 1

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: So, that -- ith tha of you, so,

Size: 37 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: abo the early r

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: Mm-hmm. : Again, the

Size: 32 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: detail that I if sai reen light, W

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 2 on Exhib 3 or 4 know, go

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and C. was happening to a

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A, B, and C. hat mething happe

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that came i tly adv were --

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ginal intake time MS. : Y : Y MR. HERRON: -- -- h

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the extent of th MS. : as I -- as I --

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to a head hat and --

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: ca

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: in rom you --

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Okay. : get from y

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: what the tim and say Q Ri

Size: 30 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: 1, I'm now her on asked for a

Size: 37 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: ks like either Mr. , as prepared, in p

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: rring, not r or ask policy wa

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: OW you think C MS. : you had those

Size: 57 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. : Who?

Size: 69 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: in Miami. fir

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: there in Mi ay,

Size: 51 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: the way,

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: by the way was orrect.

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: 0, as a 07 1 : if you

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: goes to the to , wh eported to

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: who repo to . P my first as

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: -- she repor to wh I tried

Size: 38 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: ugh

Size: 57 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: thr

Size: 31 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: to

Size: 45 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 8 O - 9 : A R

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ht. and tha an't recall.

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: HOTM noà and reason to belie

Size: 27 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: we DAIPUS W. no reason

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: a prett you saw this

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: lieve you saw and UT no

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ittle

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: right. ing

Size: 45 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 4 Q A 5 usi

Size: 51 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ight. Okay. So Bla

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: fies tha with one of

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: And -- cl pre you, meeting w

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: with you, 0 6 -

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: My and is ting, I

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: both sides t hat ack So, that goe

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : - ing first nar

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Mr. . I I'r

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: names. DW, say ssues, and

Size: 30 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: says, you and is needed

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1, target date

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: et date is

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: ereafter, wi SA,

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: within a mont wa

Size: 56 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: wer

Size: 32 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: and

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: wa - -

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: how ope so, a lot o

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: lief on the part and ers typically don

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the belief on did offenders typ

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: hat :

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 0 All 2 : 3 A Mm-

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: guess th Are feathe

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: best gues Are feat

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: becaus qua he was ver

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: out, bec ize was he was

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I : she have --

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: BY Would she h

Size: 11 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: you want t

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 're on't you wan

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: want to

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 11 you' , or ney before —

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: mean, if y 're . torney bef

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: you have any rea : SW ' euop

Size: 33 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: any reason 1 hat estigation ad

Size: 58 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: reason to believe was adequately, -

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the e-m abo would allo

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ntly the e by a would al

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hen

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: nd

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: aware that to iew of how th

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: defense couns and case --

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 4 5 case -- -

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: for apste to

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Epstein were to

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: point or info and and

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: nformation here and had

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : back on t

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: record.) : back on

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ght, back

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. right, bac

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that hen han 80

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: time frame I 1 sub 2 pages, and he

Size: 51 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: bmitted that by

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: She submitted in,

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: by transm

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: memo to her

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: memo to

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: transmittal

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: -

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Size: 38 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: sodord pue N ue / I

Size: 37 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: ference to Exh tha two weeks aft

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: by reference rom rence two we

Size: 38 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: was planning and tol indictment,

Size: 57 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: 4 a press confe thi 6 therefore, "p

Size: 31 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: = has

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: any idea why F / 07 1

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that with y der was the SAC

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: with you and y ,hi the SAC at the

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: All right. and has -- do you kn

Size: 26 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: way off, HH, , ca had actu

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ubmitted her to ? -- I can

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: it sounds to S

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that 1 "m ,

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that I' to

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: NUTUO ne

Size: 24 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: . I 2 this ain

Size: 45 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: ight. is ight.

Size: 26 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: Right. Right.

Size: 57 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: is cluding

Size: 31 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: hat in, excluding

Size: 31 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: is ing additional

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: chain, ex , an

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: to that cha ,

Size: 26 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: ending to th is,

Size: 51 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: forwarding 0 , th

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: it, or if I and and I can say th

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I read it, ith and far. I C

Size: 37 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: and at in May versus

Size: 44 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: nly and I did that in

Size: 43 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: or just relied and ? ome combination

Size: 37 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: materials, or le, and probably some

Size: 44 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: xhibit 9 is an hat is mo and Lefcourt

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that you are no ing tha tter." Gerald

Size: 26 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: but that ou, "H efcourt was

Size: 13 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the aoc

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: documents and

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: g to

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: two sub in Right.

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A Right

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: I A Di +

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: A

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 3 4 A

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and discussion

Size: 11 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: of a discussi

Size: 19 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: and wo ion. I don

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ence would IO , S error T -- AI

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I -- was erence wou

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: t would hav IO was I

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 don't re or , bu have been so

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: have be has told

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: would and h

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: erence wou of a

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ively involved has DUE --

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: actively i

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: mory, or would sem

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ' Arowew in hat

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Page 79 was

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: if

Size: 39 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: on his assess to might bounce i

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: for I might b

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: was : ne OW, , I

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: know, ,I to his

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1S it -- do w had fice?

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: you om to

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: did not se re pursue the

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 2 pursue I

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: This is ob

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Exhibit 9 hat "This is

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: bviously a ST nd -

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ? A So, I

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A - N 1 2

Size: 30 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: the managem and tha

Size: 37 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: had

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: did , an

Size: 43 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: did , as

Size: 44 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: say A So, at

Size: 26 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: A $ 6 5 9

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: nesses. So, rom bas ord that all

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: in

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: June of 2006. 3, say the state

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: com

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Q 1 to 2 A

Size: 39 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ask him, have

Size: 26 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: you ask hi ask

Size: 44 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: memo? And curi . on't recall. I

Size: 26 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: the memo? than I don't re

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: eculate, and I is, her

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: id you jump ser is

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Her seco , ha Secondly,

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to . n, and I'm a

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: most likel use and in the man

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ble here. han tha

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: say the office,

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ight. hen you, the

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Epstein. He h by , bu ame page as to

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: -- to work is ant to -- in h

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 10 : hat mportant to

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Florida, di if is cap a rule 1

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: tha a little di

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 'pooasiapuo by that's a li

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ore what you rom tha Q All

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: All right. Ir MS. : o MS. : ...

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. : One MS. : G THE WITNESS: Yea

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. : One MS. : G THE WITNESS: Yea

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: WITNESS: Yea MS. : said in cases

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: DUP so we are MS. : opposed to, or as

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: way you pose rom , an

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Size: 26 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: hat

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that at

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: aware that to

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ? of him.

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: now ly knew of h

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: -- aid n as

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: aid nis

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: at

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: provided a fair , an wed the pros me

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: PIACID to he reviewed th

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: strong sta 4 in closely.

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ays did legal analy

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: analysis. Her . goe ncludes that th

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hen concludes

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Page 95 ater

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ave ba the same pag

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: a five year ave in ying she favo

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: you was A Right

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: S goe call concer

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: helpful. and recall con

Size: 30 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: be my assumpt ork was oing on this

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 'MOUY MOU Ms.

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: now much was

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: detailed rom of of them, and