EFTA00009016.pdf

Page 200 
1 
day, you were calling for some edits that really reflected --
2 
seemed to reflect a real discomfort --
3 
A 
4 
Q 
-- as you identify. 
5 
A 
Again, I'm perhaps supporting -- I'm supporting the 
6 
point you're trying to make that we were focused on getting 
7 
this done, and real concern that he would not go to jail. 
8 
And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is, did 
9 
the focus on, let's just get this done and get a jail term, 
10 
mean that we didn't take a step back and say, let's evaluate 
11 
how this train is moving? 
12 
Q 
You --
13 
A 
From my perspective. 
14 
Q 
Okay. I want to just sort of round out the little 
15 
bit of this -- the state -- the state only resolution. You 
16 
used the term a couple of times backstopping. What do you 
17 
mean by that? 
18 
A 
What I mean by that is, a sense that the state 
19 
wasn't doing enough, and perhaps backstopping is a polite way 
20 
of saying encouraging the state to do a little bit more. 
21 
Q 
MM-hmm. All right. Did you have any discussions 
22 
about whether this disposition comported with the Ashcroft 
23 
memo in that you were hunting to the state for a minor 
24 
charge, for a fairly minor charge, what you -- your office 
25 
had already understood from the evidence was a quite wide 
EFTA00009016

1 
ranging scheme of predatory, my term, behavior regarding 
2 
minor victims? 
3 
A 
So, I don't recall a discussion around the Ashcroft 
4 
memo. I would characterize what we did differently, in that 
5 
there are any number of instances where the federal 
6 
government or the state government can proceed, and state 
7 
charges are substantially less and different, and on a fairly 
8 
regular basis, the federal government allows the state 
no: 
9 
allows, but stands aside and lets the state proceed. 
10 
Q 
But in this case, you actually had an active 
11 
investigation that had been proceeding for a year. 
12 
A 
So, let's take the drug context, where there might 
13 
be any number of active investigations where the federal 
14 
charges can be rather substantial, but ultimately, the 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
Q 
But the state goes forward with what? 
21 
A 
Forward with different charges that -- that have a 
22 
lesser term. And so, I don't think it's unusual. We can 
23 
talk about, you know, whether this was the best disposition 
24 
or not, but I don't think it's unusual to have fact patterns 
25 
that are under investigation that proceed in state court, 
federal government says just let the state proceed with this, 
or violent crime cases where the federal government could 
bring gun charges using felon in possession or another 
mandatory minimum, but the state goes forward with -- so, in 
that sense --
EFTA00009017

Page 202 
1 
where the disposition is different than -- and would have 
2 
been if it had proceeded in federal court. 
3 
Q 
All right. Do you have anything on that? 
4 
: On the two years, or something else? 
5 
: No. I'm going back to the two 
6 
years. 
7 
: Okay. 
8 
BY 
9 
Q 
Did you think -- did you believe at the time, if 
10 
this was part of your thinking, that because it was so 
11 
important to get sex offender registration, and even later 
12 
developed damages -- monetary damages for the victims, under 
13 
the state plea arrangement, that pretty much the only thing 
14 
that the government had -- the federal government had to give 
15 
up in this negotiation was jail time? If you wanted -- you 
16 
wanted --
17 
A 
Right. 
18 
Q 
-- three things --
19 
A 
Correct. 
20 
Q 
-- you've said, jail time, sex offender status, and 
21 
some kind of restitution or damages --
22 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
-- mechanisms. Sex offender registration, there's 
24 
no -- really no give there. You either register or you 
25 
don't. I'm being binary --
EFTA00009018

Page 203 
1 
2 
6 
7 
8 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- again, I'm sorry. 
A 
But it is binary, so --
Q 
It is binary. 
A 
Yes. 
Q 
And likewise, the --
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- monetary recovery provisions. So, really, the 
9 
only thing to negotiate is time, right? 
10 
A 
And so, your question is why did we not start at 
11 
three so we ended up at two? 
12 
Q 
Well, that's -- that's -- that's a consequence of 
13 
what --
14 
A 
So --
15 
Q 
-- I was asking. 
16 
A 
So, again, my recollection is I understood this to 
17 
reflect what he would have received as opposed to some 
18 
arbitrary, let's start at three so we end up at two. I 
19 
also -- I'm sorry, you have a question? 
20 
Q 
No, go ahead. Go ahead. I'll get to my question. 
21 
A 
You know, I also -- from my perspective, was, you 
22 
know, early on when we set firm on the two years, I thought 
23 
two years would have been the right outcome. We ended up on 
24 
18 months. I can't say how. There's some documents that 
25 
might help, but I -- but I was at least initially firm on 
EFTA00009019

Page 204 
1 
those two years. 
2 
Q 
Right, so you -- when you say, I thought the two 
3 
years was the right amount, is that based on your 
4 
understanding that that's what he would have gotten in the 
5 
state? 
6 
A 
Correct. 
7 
Q 
All right. 
8 
A 
That -- and the point I'm trying to convey there is 
9 
that this wasn't, to my understanding, a random number, but 
10 
it was informed by, this is what he would have received, and 
11 
therefore it is a reasonable -- agree or disagree with the 
12 
analysis, but it was an informed number to begin with. 
13 
BY 
14 
Q 
But you don't recall how that analysis was done, or 
15 
who conducted --
16 
A 
17 
Q 
-- that analysis? 
18 
A 
-- don't recall that. 
19 
BY -: 
20 
Q 
Or even whether it was accurate, actually? 
21 
A 
I -- again, I don't recall that. 
22 
Q 
All right. 
23 
BY 
24 
Q 
And I understand the explanation. 
25 
A 
Right. 
EFTA00009020

Page 205 
1 
Q 
And --
2 
A 
Right. 
3 
Q 
-- what it's tied to, but was there any 
4 
consideration -- because this case --
5 
A 
Right. 
6 
Q 
-- was not about one or two victims. It was a very 
7 
large scheme by this older, wealthy man, to essentially turn 
8 
minors into prostitutes, have sex with them, oral sex, get 
9 
other people involved. 
10 
You've described it in prior statements as 
11 
grotesque and deserving of punishment. What I'm not hearing 
12 
through this process is anybody taking a look at this overall 
13 
conduct, and saying, what is the appropriate punishment for 
14 
this man's conduct? Was there such a consideration, and did 
15 
you feel that two years adequately punished him for the scope 
16 
of his conduct? 
17 
A 
Fair question, and perhaps going back to where we 
18 
started, which is petite. To my mind at the time, there was 
19 
a distinction between what would be the adequate punishment 
20 
if this was a purely federal case, versus what is necessary 
21 
so that it is not a -- to put it in petite language 
a 
22 
manifest injustice, so that it wouldn't have come to the 
23 
office in the first place. 
24 
And that I think is the important distinction, 
25 
because if the two years is what he would have received, and 
EFTA00009021

Page 206 
1 
therefore it would not have come into the office under 
2 
petite, then if there is a state disposition to that, that is 
3 
one possible outcome. 
4 
It would be a different outcome if this was truly a 
5 
federal pro=section independent of the state, which goes back 
6 
to the point I was making about concern about a federal 
7 
precedent with this kind of sentence, because then when the 
8 
next person comes along, they say, well, here is this 
9 
precedent under 371, or whatnot. 
10 
And so, this was, rightly or wrongly, and I 
11 
understand the -- the pushback -- an analysis that 
12 
distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest 
13 
injustice, versus what is the appropriate federal outcome to 
14 
that. Agree or disagree with the logic is one thing, but did 
15 
I explain the logic? 
16 
Q 
You've -- yes, you've explained the logic. 
17 
A 
Okay. 
18 
Q 
And I'm going to push back a little bit --
19 
A 
Right. 
20 
Q 
-- on that, because the petite policy specifically 
21 
says it does not apply where the state conduct is only a 
22 
minor part -- an insignificant part of the entire course of 
23 
conduct, and they give examples about where you have some 
24 
type of a RICO scheme, and the state has indicted or 
25 
convicted the perpetrator based on something that could be 
EFTA00009022

one single overt act in the government's conspiracy, and 
2 
doesn't that really show what is going on here, that what the 
3 
state had done was really just a small, minor part of this 
4 
scheme that the federal government had a --
A 
Right. 
6 
Q 
-- had a real opportunity to punish him for this 
7 
entire course of conduct? 
8 
A 
So, possibly, but if I can circle back to your 
9 
question previously, it's interesting that you characterize 
10 
this as, he's turning these girls into prostitutes, and then 
11 
I think that's really interesting, because in 2019, 13 years 
12 
afterwards, despite all the changes in the law, there is 
13 
still some element somewhere that says he's turning these 
14 
girls into prostitutes, whereas this was a typical 
15 
trafficking case of the kind that you'd see in the Lou De 
16 
Baca days where, you know, it was called modern day slavery. 
17 
That's a very different fact pattern. 
18 
So, you know, a girl that's held captive, is forced 
9 
to service multiple men per day, where this is part of an 
20 
ongoing business arrangement. And so, I hear what you're 
21 
saying, but if here at this table at least some element of 
22 
that characterization is live, what would it mean in 2006 
23 
when these laws are still being developed? And that 
24 
consideration, rightly or wrongly, was part of this analysis. 
25 
BY 
EFTA00009023

1 
Q 
Was it explicitly -- in other words, was -- was 
that aspect of it, the -- I -- the perception that this was 
perhaps activity that -- in which the victims cooperated? 
4 
Was that part of the --
S 
A 
No, no. Let me -- let me distinguish. I didn't 
6 
say the perception that this was activities in which the 
7 
victims cooperated. What I was going to -- what I -- and 
8 
I've gone to before is, would jurors -- is there at least one 
9 
juror that might say, look, we've got conflicting victim 
10 
testimony. 
1.1 
Some of them said he did nothing wrong. They all 
12 
knew each other. They kept going back and taking payment. 
13 
Is this trafficking, or is this prostitution? I'm not --
14 
not saying I agree with that, and I don't think -- I don't 
15 
think prosecutors do, I'm saying is there -- is there at 
16 
least a possibility of that? And --
17 
Q 
Was that articulated to you by the people you were 
18 
listening to by 
and --
19 
A 
So --
20 
21 
A 
So, that certainly was part of the discussions when 
22 
I talk about the victim issues, would at least some jurors 
23 
view it that way, rightly or wrongly? 
24 
Q 
And you recall having that -- those --
25 
A 
EFTA00009024

Page 
Q 
-- conversations? 
2 
A 
I recall having not only how would the witnesses 
3 
stand up in court, but how would jurors view them? And then 
4 
the second part of that is, as it goes up in the appellate 
5 
process with respect to the -- the federal nexus. And so, I 
6 
hear you, but you know, I -- it's -- it's sort of one of the 
7 
factors. And so --
8 
BY 
9 
Q 
And so --
10 
A 
11 
Q 
-- what I'm getting though is that there didn't 
12 
seem like there was a consideration or discussion about, is 
13 
this two years capturing the scope of his conduct, versus, 
14 
we're just going to tie it to this potential state crime that 
15 
could have been charged? 
.6 
A 
Fair, and I would -- I would say that the two years 
17 
was not meant -- so, the petite policy has several prongs, 
18 
and to my recollection, the petite analysis was not based 
19 
on -- and let's not even call it petite analysis. That 
20 
overstates it. 
21 
But it was much more of a, is this a manifest 
22 
injustice, and -- and if the original -- and so, you sort of 
23 
see it in the Exhibit 3. This would not have been brought to 
24 
the office in the first place if -- you know, if he had plead 
25 
to jail time and registration, and rightly or wrongly, that 
EFTA00009025

Page 210 
1 
was understood from the very beginning of the case, and was a 
2 
factor in how the case was viewed. 
3 
Q 
And how do you know that it wouldn't have -- that 
4 
wouldn't have been upset with a minimal jail 
5 
time, even if there was sex registration? 
6 
A 
So, I can't 12 years later say how we knew that. I 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
: They did. 
13 
THE WITNESS: I can't speak for certain, but you 
14 
probably have that from the record, and that when they 
15 
changed the ASA involved and took it to grand jury, the 
16 
charges that came back were substantially less. 
17 
BY 
18 
Q 
Do you remember the circumstances? Did you know 
19 
the circumstances under which that ASA was changed? 
20 
A 
I don't know. 
21 
Q 
All right. The -- by the way, do you remember an 
22 
occasion in which 
came to your office in Miami 
23 
to press you on what was going to be happening with the 
can say that my -- my general impression was that this was 
proceeding at the state, that there were certain charges, and 
that those charges changed when it went to a grand jury, and 
that it went from -- I think they even changed the ASA 
involved. 
24 
federal case? 
25 
A 
I don't recall. 
• 
EFTA00009026

1 
Q 
You don't recall. I --
2 
: Just one more, 
: Yeah. 
4 
THE WITNESS: Yeah. 
5 
BY 
6 
Q 
So, before we --
7 
A 
Yeah. 
8 
Q 
-- leave this --
9 
Yeah. 
10 
Q 
-- one little thing. So, if this case had come 
11 
into the federal system as apart from the --
2 
Ficht. 
Q 
-- taken the digression through the --
A 
Rlunt. 
-- state system, do you think that the two years 
was an appropriate punishment, given the scope of his 
conduct? 
A 
I think if it had come into the federal system 
19 
apart from the whole state and the petite considerations and 
20 
all that, we may have ended up in a different place. I 
21 
viewed the two years, to my recollection, as a manifest 
22 
injustice standard, and not an appropriate punishment 
23 
standard. 
24 
Q 
Meaning whether it was manifestly unjust that he 
25 
get two years? 
EFTA00009027

Page 212 
1 
A 
No, whether it was -- so, let me -- let me -- let 
2 
me rephrase. No jail time was a manifest injustice. If he 
3 
had gone to jail for two years in the state system and 
4 
registered, the question of whether it would have come to the 
5 
office at all, and to my recollection, the consensus was, and 
6 
based on Exhibit 3, agrees with that, that it would 
7 
never have come to the office in the first place, because we 
8 
would not view that under petite as a manifest injustice. 
9 
There are any number of cases that are prosecuted 
10 
around the country where an individual gets a jail time that 
11 
the federal government may not agree with, but that doesn't 
12 
mean that the federal government reprosecutes those cases. 
13 
The instances where the federal government reprosecutes a 
14 
state case are pretty rare, to my knowledge. 
15 
And so, under the petite standard, and the 
16 
petite -- the manifest injustice would -- it would have been 
17 
a manifest injustice to have zero jail time, and zero 
18 
registration, but if the original charges had remained, that 
19 
would be a different matter. That does not mean that that is 
20 
the best outcome in the state system. 
21 
and so, perhaps beating a -- you know, an issue, 
22 
but let me maybe give an example. One concern that I had was 
23 
that in the violent crime side, the state brings a case, and 
24 
you know, there is a deferment, no jail time. The state then 
25 
brings a second case, and there's minimal jail time. Well, 
EFTA00009028

Page 213 
1 
now the person has done three violent crimes, they have a 
2 
gun, they go federal, and it's like, please don't do that. 
3 
Pretty please don't do that. 
4 
You know, we're going to punish you a little bit, 
5 
and then all of a sudden in comes the federal government with 
6 
the big, big punch to the face, because the federal sentences 
7 
are so different than the state sentences. And that happens 
8 
all the time in any number of contexts in Florida. That 
9 
doesn't mean that all of those cases get reprosecuted as gun 
10 
cases in Florida. 
11 
That means that we understand that the Florida 
12 
system is different than the federal system. And so, the way 
13 
we looked at, at least based on my recollection, those two 
14 
years was not, what would he have received if this was a 
15 
purely federal case, but would this case have been prosecuted 
16 
by the federal system additionally if he had received jail 
17 
time and registration in the state system? 
8 
Q 
And would -- is it fair to say that this particular 
9 
concern about, for lack of a better word, federalism or the 
20 
petite policy, was that a primary concern of yours versus any 
21 
of your employees in terms of 
or 
22 
A 
I think it's fair to say that I focused more on the 
23 
legal side of things, and my team focused more on the trial 
24 
and how this would play out at trial, and both of them 
25 
both of them sort of informed the outcome. 
EFTA00009029

Page 214 
1 
Q 
And are you including this petite policy in your 
2 
consideration of the legal issues? 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
A 
Yes. Yeah. I think those are all tied together. 
BY 
Q 
So, you mentioned victim --
A 
But -- but could I -- could I --
Q 
Yes. 
A 
But to clarify, I thought we had sufficient to go 
9 
forward so it wasn't an ethical violation to proceed. 
10 
Q 
Mm-hmm. Okay. The victim -- you mentioned the 
11 
victims coming into state court, and you talked about all the 
12 
victims coming into state court. Do you have any idea what 
13 
victims formed the basis for the original charge that --
14 
A 
I do not. 
15 
Q 
-- he was indicted on? Do you know whether it was 
16 
one -- was it a felony assault pros of a non-minor. 
17 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
18 
Q 
It could have been -- it was three instances to 
19 
felonize it. You don't know whether it was one person three 
20 
times, three people? 
21 
A 
I do not. 
22 
Q 
And you don't know whether that person was a minor 
23 
or not? 
24 
A 
I do not. 
25 
Q 
All right. 
EFTA00009030

Page 215 
1 
A 
I would assume they were, but I do not. 
2 
Q 
Likewise, do you know who was the victim, or who 
3 
the victims were who formed the basis for the 796.03 charge 
4 
to which Epstein ultimately pled in June of 2008? 
5 
A 
I did not at the time. I've read various accounts 
6 
of that, but that's based on matters that I've read and not 
7 
an independent recollection. 
8 
Q 
And what's your understanding? 
9 
A 
My understanding is that there's some 
that there 
10 
is at least some issue in the media over whether the -- the 
11 
right or the best victims were chosen from the prosecution's 
12 
perspective. 
13 
Q 
And do you know -- was there any indication of who 
14 
the victims were? Do you know who the victims were who were 
15 
the subject of the state charges? 
16 
A 
Which particular names? No, I don't. 
17 
Q 
Right, I'm not asking you --
18 
A 
Yeah. 
19 
Q 
-- other than names --
20 
A 
Yeah. 
21 
I just want to know if you know who they are or 
22 
how many they were. 
23 
A 
I -- I do not. 
24 
Q 
Right, it could be one, right? For this -- for the 
25 
solicitation. It could be one conceivably. Both the charges 
EFTA00009031

Page 216 
1 
could relate to one victim. 
2 
A 
Right. So -- so, those matters were very much part 
3 
of the negotiation that
 and to some extent Andy were 
4 
involved in. I did not --
5 
Q 
What makes you think that -- that -- the -- your 
6 
people were negotiating which victims would form the basis? 
7 
8 
9 
A 
Fair. Fair point. 
Q 
Okay. 
A 
Fair point. I withdraw. They may not have. I 
10 
don't know -- I don't know how in the weeds and how much our 
11 
folks, as a federal system, sort of interacted with the state 
12 
in terms of what punishment. I -- there's at least some 
13 
discussion in the media regarding whether the punishment was 
14 
a function of the victims and registration, and I can't speak 
15 
to that. 
16 
Q 
All right. Are you aware, just as a point of 
17 
interest, that the public record of the proceedings in the 
18 
state court related to Epstein are utterly silent as to who 
19 
or how many victims form the basis of the charges to which he 
20 
pled? 
21 
A 
I -- no. I was not aware. 
22 
Q 
Okay. So, this idea of many victims coming forth 
23 
in state court and so on are not -- is not -- it's not really 
24 
in play. All right. So, you have a two year -- two years 
25 
has been now -- a two year state deal has been announced to 
EFTA00009032

Page 217 
1 
the team by 
2 
A 
Yeah. 
3 
Q 
With your knowledge and approval, right? Because 
4 
he wouldn't do it otherwise. Is that right? 
A 
Fair. 
6 
Q 
Though at least one was surprised. Do you know 
7 
what drove the timing of the plea offer? In other words, why 
8 
did it have to be made at that point? 
9 
A 
I do not. 
10 
Q 
Okay. You know that 
submitted his 
11 
resignation on the 23rd of July. 
12 
A 
I saw that in the --
13 
Q 
Right. 
14 
A 
-- in the -- in the documents. 
15 
Q 
In the documents, and he submitted that to you 
16 
among other -- as well as the --
17 
A 
Yeah. 
18 
Q 
HR people. Why not -- well, then there was a 
19 
July 31st meeting at which the term sheet was presented. 
20 
This document 15 is the term sheet that was presented, as 
21 
indicates in her September 6th cover note -- cover e-
22 
mail. And you said you approved it. You happen to be copied 
23 
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- though --
EFTA00009033

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
A 
So --
Q 
A 
Let me --
Q 
-- forwards this, but --
A 
Let me -- let me be -- let me be accurate. I 
6 
approved these terms, whether it was this specific term sheet 
7 
or another -- another document that might have been earlier 
8 
that looked highly similar to this. 
9 
My recollection is approving a, 
you know, 
10 
approving a resolution that had him pleading to certain state 
11 
counts that had a binding two-year plus recommendation that - 
12 
- and that provided for 22.55 restitution. 
13 
Q 
Right, but you don't know if it was this sheet of 
14 
paper? 
15 
A 
I can't say 12 years after the fact whether it was 
16 
this specific sheet --
17 
Q 
Right. 
19 
Q 
All right. 
20 
A 
-- or others. I -- based on the fact that this was 
21 
in the e-mail, I think it's safe to -- to assume, but --
22 
Q 
To assume what? 
23 
A 
To assume that it was this. 
24 
Q 
oh. 
2S 
A 
But it's possible that there was as slight 
EFTA00009034

Page 219 
1 
difference in --
2 
Q 
All right. In fact, this -- this same document 
3 
with a couple of --
4 
5 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- additional bullets that had to do with the date 
6 
of entry of the plea, sort of ministerial, is what was 
7 
prepared by 
on or about the 31st -- on or 
8 
before the 31st of July, and this document, as indicated --
9 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
10 
Q 
-- here, along with the attached guidelines 
11 
calculation is what was provided to the folks who met on the 
12 
31st --
13 
A 
Fair. 
14 
Q 
-- of July. Okay. So, on that 31st, it was 
15 
, Jerry Lefcourt, 
Sanchez, and the purpose of 
16 
the meeting with Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and 
as 
17 
well as the case agents was to present the plea offer. And 
18 
did you get briefed on how that plea offer went? 
19 
A 
I don't recall being briefed, but in the regular 
20 
course, I would have been. 
21 
Q 
All right, and at that meeting, there was an 
22 
expression of concern by the defense team that Epstein wanted 
23 
to avoid being incarcerated in the state system because of 
24 
concerns for his physical safety, and that concern was 
25 
accommodated to the extent that the U.S. Attorney's Office 
EFTA00009035

Page 
team agreed to explore federal resolution. How does that 
2 
square with your decision that a state plea is how this case 
3 
was going to be --
4 
5 
6 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- decided? 
A 
So, I think I indicated later that it's a little 
7 
bit more fluid than a decision here or a decision 
you 
8 
know, than binary situations. My recollection is we were 
9 
very focused on, this man should go to jail, and this man 
10 
should register. 
11 
The two year plea to the state charges seemed 
12 
reasonable and seemed a way to go. We can agree or disagree. 
13 
Reasonable in terms of -- not in terms of, was it the -- the 
14 
most just outcome, but seemed like a disposition that we 
Is 
would agree to. 
:6 
But ultimately, the focus was on getting him to 
:7 
jail, and if that meant exploring a 371, it's at least worth 
18 
exploring. And so, I don't think it was inconsistent, 
19 
because the focus really was on, he needs to go to jail. 
20 
Q 
Okay. In this case, that -- that push back of 
21 
the -- that resulted --
22 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
-- in the agreement to explore a federal plea --
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- was because Epstein was afraid to be in prison. 
EFTA00009036

Page 221 
1 
Why would the U.S. Attorney's Office accommodate that? And 
2 
here, we're getting to -- we're beginning to talk about a 
3 
major point of criticism of this whole process and the 
4 
outcome and that is that it appeared that the U.S. Attorney's 
5 
Office was bending over backward to accommodate the concerns 
6 
of Jeffrey Epstein, and in this case, he was uncomfortable 
7 
going to a federal or state prison, but all child sex 
8 
predators who go to prison are going to face some --
9
 
Yeah. 
10 
Q 
-- challenges, right? 
11 
A 
Right, and I remember along the way a heavy push 
12 
that he be incarcerated at this home under some kind of home 
13 
confinement, and my reaction to that was no way. 
14 
Q 
Right. 
15 
A 
And okay, you don't like prison, but that doesn't 
16 
mean you get to be incarcerated in your house. 
17 
Q 
Mm-hr. 
18 
A 
Which is interesting, because subsequently 
19 
Q 
Yeah. 
20 
A 
And so --
21 
Q 
Because subsequently, what? You might as well 
22 
finish --
23 
A 
Well, because --
24 
Q 
-- that. 
25 
A 
-- subsequently, the way that the state executed 
EFTA00009037

Page 22
1 
the terms of incarceration were not what I would have 
2 
expected. And so, again, the focus from my perspective is, 
3 
he needs to go to jail. If the team agreed to explore it, 
4 
you know, the 371 was on the table to the extent we had 
5 
been -- I'm speculating now. This is not to make the record 
6 
clear. 
7 
Q 
Mm-hmm. Thank you. 
8 
A 
I'm speculating, not recalling. I can speculate a 
9 
371 with a two year rule 11 had been discussed based on the 
10 
contemporaneous record, and so, to the extent it had already 
11 
been discussed, even if it was not the direction we were 
12 
taking, would it have been unusual for folks in the room to 
13 
say, well, look, we've discussed that, let's go back. You 
14 
know, let's see where it goes. I can't fault -- to the 
15 
extent it had been discussed -- I can't fault anyone for 
16 
saying, let's go back and look at it. I think that's 
17 
distinguishable at least from subsequent --
18 
Q 
All right. At that point, the defense was given 
19 
two weeks to take it or leave it, and if not, you would 
20 
indict, and there were several occasions --
21 
A 
Correct. 
22 
Q 
-- when that kind of ultimately was made. Did that 
23 
mean -- I mean, given all of your concerns about barriers to 
24 
what you would consider a successful federal prosecution, was 
25 
that a bluff? 
EFTA00009038

1 
2 
4 
A 
Q 
A 
Q 
Page 223 
No. 
It was not. 
It was not. 
You were at some level at least prepared to approve 
5 
the presentation of the -- or, the presentment of --
6 
A 
We --
7 
Q 
-- an indictment? 
8 
A 
We should not have gone forward with these 
9 
negotiations if we weren't ready to --
10 
Q 
All right. 
11 
A 
-- to approve. Whether in this form or a different 
12 
form and indictment, and I say that because it was very much 
13 
a draft indictment that hadn't been reviewed fully by the 
14 
chain, but it wasn't a bluff. 
15 
Q 
Well, by this time it -- it had been reviewed, and 
16 
it --
19 
A 
Had it been reviewed, and revised, and --
Q 
It had -- there -- there had been some efforts to 
begin revising, so --
20 
A 
So --
24 
4 
A 
4 
A 
Yeah. 
Some --
It wasn't finalized. 
Yeah. Some efforts to begin --
25 
Q 
Exactly. 
EFTA00009039

Page 224 
1 
A 
Right. 
2 
Q 
Okay. Looking at 11a, this is a letter that 
3 
drafted to sort of actually respond to a 
4 
counteroffer by the defense. The counteroffer is represented 
5 
in Exhibit 10b, which is a letter from 
Sanchez 
6 
which we don't need to go into in detail, because as you've 
7 
already pointed out, essentially it was a home confinement, 
8 
and you know, very, very soft --
9
 
Yeah. 
10 
Q 
-- landing counteroffer. In 11a, 
11 
tweaks 
letter, you're copied on this, and the date is 
12 
August 2, Thursday, and he notes that he hadn't discussed it 
13 
in detail with you, but he wanted to -- he hoped that 
14 
tomorrow, Friday the 3rd --
15 
A 
Right. 
16 
Q 
-- he'd have a chance to, and what's notable here 
17 
is that -- is that the -- there's strong language that the 
18 
"Office believes that the federal interest would not be 
19 
vindicated in the absence of a two year term of state 
20 
imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a 
21 
starting point for negotiation. It is the minimum term of 
22 
imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal 
23 
prosecution." 
24 
A 
You're on paragraph two? 
25 
Q 
One. 
EFTA00009040

Page 225 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
A 
One, yes. 
Q 
Oh, two. 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
It's the first --
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- long paragraph. And then he also states that --
7 
that you in the last paragraph -- the U.S. Attorney, "U.S. 
8 
Attorney Acosta has asked me to communicate that the two year 
9 
term of incarceration is non-negotiable." 
10 
A 
Yes. 
11 
Q 
That's pretty firm. That's a -- that's a line --
12 
A 
It is. 
13 
Q 
-- in the concrete that is setting, right? 
14 
A 
Right. 
15 
Q 
And lib is the letter as it actually went out the 
16 
next day. 
17 
A 
And it's got the same language. 
18 
Q 
It's identical. It has the same language. It has 
19 
one typo corrected. This is 
last day in the 
20 
office. 
21 
A 
Yes. 
22 
Q 
And he's gone after that. Do you think that this 
23 
was an -- the appropriate timing to extend this offer, or to 
24 
set this as the minimum offer, or was it something that you 
25 
would've liked to have seen more fully developed in 
EFTA00009041

Page 226 
1 
negotiations with defense counsel? 
2 
A 
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question when 
3 
you say more fully developed. 
4 
Q 
Well, you -- you have two years. Would -- would 
5 
further consideration have led the U.S. Attorney's Office to 
6 
decide that, well, maybe the two years is too much of a 
7 
giveaway; we should stick with a five year federal plea? 
8 
A 
Yeah. I can't -- so, I can't speculate this far 
9 
after the fact whether waiting an additional time period and 
10 
further discussion would have changed things. I can tell you 
11 
how we came up with it, but that -- that's a lot of 
12 
speculation. 
13 
Q 
Would you say that 
was -- as the 
14 
criminal chief, was essentially the driver of this -- of the 
15 
resolution --
16 
A 
Right. 
17 
(2 
-- presented in this letter? 
18 
A 
I can't. Again, you're asking me to speak to 
19 
something from 12 years ago. I can't speak to it. I was 
20 
aware of the multiple prongs. I approved it. If we had had, 
21 
you know, if -- if a -- at some point -- is your question is 
22 
if at some point there had been a, let's sit down and 
23 
reconsider meeting, would we have gone in a different 
24 
direction? Perhaps, but I can't, 12 years after the fact, 
25 
speculate as to what may have happened if something had 
EFTA00009042

Page 227 
1 
happened. 
2 
Q 
All right. 
3 
A 
That's just a lot of hypotheticals. 
4 
Q 
Understood. The question though is whether Matt 
5 
Menchel, who was the author --
6 
A 
Right. 
7 
Q 
-- of this, who first raised it --
8 
A 
Right. 
-- with 
9 
Q 
Sanchez --
10 
A 
Yeah. 
11 
Q 
-- in an informal discussion, and who presented it 
12 
to the U.S. Attorney's Office team, was this really his baby? 
13 
A 
I can't --
14 
Q 
Approved by you. 
15 
A 
I can't -- I don't remember who I talked to about 
16 
what, and so it wouldn't be fair for me to -- you know, I 
17 
can't single out any one person as having a greater or lesser 
18 
role. 
19 
Q 
Well, you were not the architect of this, right? 
20 
You approved it as you've described it. 
21 
A 
No, I haven't said I wasn't the architect. What I 
22 
said is I don't recall --
23 
Q 
Right. 
24 
A 
I recall approving it. You know, I -- I think what 
25 
I'm trying to convey is these discussions are much more fluid 
EFTA00009043

Page 228 
1 
than I think any one single architect. You've got multiple 
2 
lawyers. They interact on a daily basis. They talk back and 
3 
forth. 
4 
To -- to sort of put it in an OPR context, there's 
5 
probably not going to be a single author to the report. 
6 
You're all going to go back and forth, and there might be 
7 
someone that has 
maybe there is a single author. Who 
8 
knows? But it's -- I think it's difficult to say there's a 
9 
single person, and ultimately I was U.S. Attorney, and so I 
10 
approved it and 
11 
Q 
To your knowledge, did anyone in that chain of 
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- that five person chain or anyone else disagree 
14 
with this offer? 
15 
A 
To --
16 
Q 
I'm not talking about --
17 
A 
To my knowledge -- to my knowledge, I think 
18 
at sometimes may have felt uncomfortable, but whether there 
19 
was explicit disagreement or not, I don't recall. In terms 
20 
of my management chain, I don't recall any disagreement. 
21 
Q 
That you were aware of? 
22 
A 
That I was aware of. I -- I recalled discussions. 
23 
So, for example, 
might say I might proceed with a 371 
24 
with a two year cap under rule 11, but then we move in this 
25 
other direction, and I don't recall anyone saying, let's take 
EFTA00009044

Page 229 
1 
a time out, let's reconsider. 
2 
Q 
All right. 
3 
A 
And let me -- let me just clarify, I think at 
4 
various points in this case -- and it's hard -- it's hard to 
5 
sort of single out the timeline. Ms. 
was 
6 
supportive, or maybe I wish we would go in a different 
7 
direction, and that sort of went in and out a little bit. 
8 
Q 
On her part? 
9 
A 
Yes. 
10 
Q 
Let me ask you this. Having reached the decision 
11 
that you approved --
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- that this was the offer, and the term sheet, or 
14 
the terms, having that decision made, would you have expected 
15 
your line AUSA to frustrate that, or to not abide by that, 
16 
since it was your decision? 
17 
A 
No, with a caveat that if at any point someone felt 
18 
truly uncomfortable, I would expect them to come and talk to 
19 
me about it. 
20 
Q 
And can you recall any instance in which an AUSA --
21 
a line AUSA came and talked to you about a disposition that 
22 
he or she was uncomfortable with? 
23 
A 
Yes. So, I'll give you an example. I don't recall 
24 
who, before you ask me, but there was this AUSA who was new 
25 
to the office who impressed the hell out of me. I'm sorry, 
EFTA00009045

Page 230 
1 
that's not appropriate language -- who impressed me 
2 
significantly. 
3 
He had inherited a case, and it was a fraud case, 
4 
and the -- the bigger players had been charged, and he was 
5 
basically given a lesser player to -- to basically just 
6 
finish up on, right? 
7 
It was a done deal. The person was ready to plead 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
Q 
Me-hom. 
14 
A 
Which, for a new AUSA in the office is pretty gusty 
15 
and unusual, but if this person really felt that this lesser 
16 
player wasn't deserving, then that was the right thing to do. 
17 
Q 
Right. 
18 
A 
And so, I don't -- and the person was not punished 
19 
for it. 
20 
Q 
Mm-hem. 
21 
A 
If anything --
22 
Q 
Mm-hmo. 
23 
A 
-- you know, I recounted that story to others. 
24 
Q 
Okay. A question, shifting gears --
25 
to some minor count, no jail time, and he felt uncomfortable 
with it, and went to his supervisor, and then ultimately came 
up to me, and I had a discussion with this person about it, 
and it ended up with my telling him to go back and call the 
defense counsel and tell them we were dropping the case. 
EFTA00009046

Page 231 
1 
Q 
-- a little bit, about 18 USC 22.55. 
Yes, okay. 
Q 
Not to be confused with 22 -- 28 USC 22.55, which 
every prosecutor is familiar with. So, whose idea was that? 
It's, it's a civil provision, a civil -- it's not 
restitution, it's damages. It's a damages recovery provision 
7 
in the criminal code. 
8 
A 
Right. 
9 
Q 
Who came up with that? 
A 
I can't speak to who came up with it. 
11 
Q 
Okay. 
12 
A 
I can speak to -- to the reasoning behind it. 
13 
Q 
Your reasoning, or the proponent's reasoning? 
14 
A 
My recollection of the reasoning as to why we 
15 
thought it was important. 
16 
Q 
And the importance was to provide a mechanism for 
17 
recovery of damages? 
18 
A 
To -- yeah. 
19 
Q 
Okay. 
20 
A 
Yeah. I mean, the victims bad situation, and we 
21 
just 
and here is -- well, go on. 
22 
Q 
All right. 
23 
A 
I might circle back on something. 
24 
Q 
So, is it fair to say that's a fairly -- had you 
2'. 
ever heard of it before? Had you come across it before? 
EFTA00009047

Page 232 
1 
A 
I don't know, but I don't think so. 
2 
Q 
Okay. So, is it fair to say it was novel to the 
3 
office? To you, and to this team? 
4 
A 
I don't want -- I don't think it's fair to say that 
5 
it's novel to the office. 
6 
Q 
Well, to the -- do you -- do you recall whether 
7 
anybody in the team had had experience with 18 USC 22.55 in a 
8 
criminal --
9 
A 
I don't have a recollection of any discussion as to 
10 
whether people had experience with this or not. 
11 
Q 
Did you believe that any legal research was needed, 
12 
or should be undertaken to ensure that the procedure was in 
13 
fact legally sound when embedded, as it was in this case, in 
14 
a criminal plea? 
15 
A 
So, I would have expected to the extent that there 
16 
were concerns. Again, we had incredibly experienced --
17 
between the various individuals on my management team, we 
18 
probably had 50 years plus of criminal experience. I would 
19 
have expected to the extent their concerns, for those 
20 
concerns to be raised. 
21 
Q 
Did you raise any -- any such concerns about it, or 
22 
did it seem to make sense to you? 
23 
A 
From my perspective, I recall -- I don't know if it 
24 
was at the time or subsequent to it, reading it, and 
and 
25 
it seemed -- it seemed to -- to make sense. 
EFTA00009048

Page 233 
1 
Q 
Okay. After 
letter went out on the 
2 
3rd of August, you almost immediately -- it appears you 
3 
received a telephone call from Kirkland S Ellis, is that 
4 
correct? 
5 
A 
That -- I don't recall it independently, but that's 
6 
what the record shows. 
7 
Q 
All right, and that's reflected in Exhibit 12. Do 
8 
you remember who called you? 
9 
A 
I do not. 
10 
Q 
Do you recall -- it apparently was from the context 
11 
of this Exhibit 12, it -- and the caption, Epstein. 
12 
A 
Right. Right. 
13 
Q 
It appears that the call related to Epstein, 
14 
correct? 
15 
A 
Correct. Again, I don't remember the phone call, 
16 
but from the e-mail, I accept that it happened. 
17 
Q 
So, what had been your knowledge and relationship 
18 
of -- with Ken Starr of Kirkland S Ellis --
19 
A 
Right. 
20 
Q 
-- up to this point? 
21 
A 
So, I had been an associate at Kirkland, I think I 
22 
indicated, what was it --
23 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
24 
A 
-- from '94 to '90 -- what was it? Was it '96 or 
25 
'97? 
EFTA00009049

Page 234 
Q 
A couple of years. 
2 
A 
For a couple of years. I worked on at least one 
3 
case that I recall with him. I was the junior associate on a 
4 
merits brief that he argued. He, at the time, was also 
5 
special counsel. And so he wasn't in the office nearly as 
6 
much because he was double hatting as special counsel --
7 
Q 
Me-ham. 
8 
A 
-- and partner. 
9 
Q 
mm-hmm. All right, and what about 
10 
A 
Sc, 
was a partner at the time. 
11 
don't recall working with him on any particular case, 
12 
although I think I worked with him on at least a matter. He 
13 
was on my hallway. He had an outside office. I had the 
14 
typical inside office. 
15 
Q 
Had you had any interaction -- any contact with 
16 
them in the intervening years, socially or professionally? 
17 
A 
Off and on, I was in Washington. They -- you know, 
18 
Ken Starr was in Washington. I think III had moved to New 
19 
York but then came back to Washington to be in the 
20 
administration, and he was in the policy office, and we may 
21 
have -- not may have. We likely interacted. 
22 
Q 
And while you were here at the criminal -- at the 
23 
civil rights division? 
24 
A 
Correc. . 
25 
Q 
All right, and did you -- were you friends? Were 
EFTA00009050

Page 235 
1 
you professional acquaintances? Were you what? How would 
2 
you characterize that? 
3 
A 
We were professional acquaintances that had worked 
4 
together several years ago that continued to interact. 
5 
Q 
Is that true as to the two of them? 
6 
A 
I mean, it's hard to characterize these things. I 
7 
think -- I think that's fair to say. 
8 
Q 
Did Ken Starr know who you were? 
9 
A 
Yes. 
10 
Q 
And obviously 
as well? 
11 
A 
Yes. 
12 
Q 
Okay. So, what was your reaction to being 
13 
contacted by them in -- by their firm, them, presumably one 
14 
of --
15 
A 
Right. 
16 
Q 
-- them perhaps? 
17 
A 
So --
18 
Q 
In --
19 
A 
So, I don't know who called based on the e-mail. I 
20 
can infer that it was one of them. 
21 
Q 
14M-hmm. 
22 
A 
And you know -- and I think my reaction is captured 
23 
by not my e-mail, but -- but by Jeff's comment, and what -- I 
24 
don't have a clear recollection, but I'm going to 
25 
speculate/infer that I heard they were being brought onto the 
EFTA00009051

Page 23E 
1 
case, and I probably walked down to Jeff's office and said, 
2 
hey, Kirkland's coming onto the case, I bet you they're going 
3 
to come on to try to take this up to D.C. 
4 
And then I get a phone call, and -- you know, and 
5 
then I tell Matt, who tells Jeff, you know, I didn't know, 
6 
maybe -- Kirkland made a call to -- you're right, 
7 
unbelievable. 
8 
And then I say they're likely to go to D.C. 
We 
9 
should strategize a bit. My concerns behind that are, will 
10 
D.C. look at this as sort of legally troubled, going back to 
11 
the earlier points that I made about the policy issues around 
12 
the trafficking issues up here in D.C. 
13 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
14 
A 
And I really do think he should go to jail. And 
5 
so, I want to strategize a bit. 
16 
Q 
So, did you have concern about the fact that you 
17 
were -- that the defense team was sort of appealing you to 
18 
the big house? 
19 
A 
I think based on this, I almost predicted this 
20 
would happen. 
21 
Q 
Yeah. 
22 
A 
And Jeff is saying, you were right, unbelievable, 
23 
where I in some way, shape, or form predicted that something 
24 
would -- someone would be hired, or something would happen to 
25 
take this all up to D.C. 
EFTA00009052

1 
Page 237 
Q 
And had you experienced other cases 
other 
2 
instances in which defense team went to D.C. while you were 
3 
at U.S. Attorney's Office -- while you were the U.S. 
4 
Attorney? 
5 
A 
Yes. 
6 
Q 
Was that a concern to you? 
7 
A 
It wasn't a concern. It was a, how do we address 
8 
this so that we can back our position and our office. 
9 
Q 
Did you have concerns about the disposition that 
10 
was underway? About -- main justice scrutiny of the NPA 
11 
scheme? 
12 
A 
So, I had no concerns about main justice scrutiny 
13 
of the NPA scheme. In fact, I invited Drew to come down --
14 
Q 
Right. 
15 
A 
-- and he was part of the meeting where we 
16 
discussed the NPA. And so, I say that because if I had 
17 
concerns, I wouldn't have invited him. If anything, my 
18 
concern was, is main justice on board, or are we going to 
19 
basically be told to drop this case when it goes up to main 
20 
justice? 
21 
MM-hmm. In your e-mail to 
, when 
22 
Sloman's on vacation --
23 
A 
Yeah. 
24 
Q 
-- you say that -- you make reference to a process 
25 
foul, that the attorneys in the defense team want to go to 
EFTA00009053

Page 238 
1 
D.C. on the case on the grounds of a process foul, i.e., that 
2 
I have not met with them, and you expressed concern that that 
3 
would delay matters. Is that what led you to agree to meet 
4 
with the defense team on the 7th of September? 
5 
A 
It is. My concern was it they came up to D.C., and 
6 
the first talking about was the U.S. Attorney didn't even 
7 
agree to meet with us, that's not the best -- that's not the 
8 
best foot to start with when you're having your case 
9 
reviewed. 
10 
Q 
So, what was your understanding of what the purpose 
11 
of the meeting on September 7th was supposed to be? 
12 
A 
They wanted to argue -- they, being defense 
13 
counsel, wanted to argue why we should not pursue this case. 
14 
Q 
And in this case, it was Starr and Lefkowitz from 
15 
Kirkland & Ellis, and Lilly Ann Sanchez, I believe who met 
16 
with you. 
17 
A 
Fair. I remember it was Starr and Lefkowitz. I 
18 
don't know if it was Lilly Ann. 
19 
Q 
All right, and our information is it was you, Drew 
20 
Oosterbaan, Sloman, 
, and John MacMillan. Do you --
21 
do you know John MacMillan? 
22 
A 
Vaguely. 
23 
Q 
All right. He was an AUSA as well. 
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
Correct? In West Palm? 
EFTA00009054

Page 239 
1 
A 
Right, and if I can just add, again, I -- I invited 
2 
Drew --
3 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
4 
A 
-- so, Drew became fully aware of that, and my 
5 
concern in getting Drew into the meeting was to not have them 
6 
appeal us, and then having Drew say, not a good case. 
7 
Q 
All right. So, were you aware that Drew Oosterbaan 
8 
had, in preparation for this, gone to West Palm and actually 
9 
gone through the evidence and met with the case agent and the 
10 
line AUSA 
11 
A 
I was not. Drew is an independent actor and could 
12 
do what -- yeah, what he thought appropriate. 
13 
Q 
Did that -- does that seem like an appropriate 
14 
thing for him to have done in your eyes? 
15 
A 
Sure. 
16 
Q 
Okay. Would you describe the meeting -- oh, and 
17 
two other people who were there were, again ASAC Val Parlave 
18 
and Junior Ortiz --
19 
A 
Right. 
20 
Q 
-- the SSA. So, and the meeting I think was in 
21 
West Palm Beach. 
22 
A 
Yes. 
23 
Q 
So, what do you recall about the meeting? The 
24 
dynamics? Who spoke? How did it go down? 
25 
A 
I recall there were a lot of people. I think Mr. 
EFTA00009055

Page 240 
Starr spoke most of the time. I think -- my recollection, as 
best as I can -- you know, with the caveat I thought 
was there and clearly he wasn't. So, presented 
4 
several arguments. I then either left the room with my team, 
5 
or I think I most likely asked them to leave the room. I 
6 
then went around and --
7 
Q 
Asked who to leave the room? 
A 
Asked the --
Q 
The defense? 
10 
A 
-- defense. I then went around the table, and
11 
said, does anyone have any concerns, or something to that 
12 
effect. And then hearing none, I asked them to come back in, 
and I reaffirmed the position of the office. 
'4 
Q 
In other words, you sort of decided -- you ruled 
from the bench, as it were. Fair enough? 
16 
A 
Fair enough. 
17 
Q 
Okay. You didn't take -- take it under advisement. 
18 
You gave them what your position was right then and there. 
19 
A 
That -- that's my recollection. I don't know if 
20 
you have information contrary, but at least --
21 
Q 
Okay. 
22 
A 
-- that's my recollection. 
23 
Q 
Okay. So, is it fair to say it was more of a 
24 
presentation on the part of Ken Starr and his side rather 
2; 
than a debate or discussion? 
EFTA00009056

Page 241 
1 
A 
I think that that's fair to say. I may have asked 
2 
a question or two, but my -- my recollection was not 
was 
3 
not a negotiation, but a, let's hear you out. 
4 
Q 
And so, we understand it was mainly a federalism 
5 
presentation, as opposed to evidence, is that accurate? 
6 
A 
I believe that's accurate, yes. 
7 
Q 
And in your letter to Ken Starr dated -- the letter 
8 
is actually not dated, but we know that it was sent on the 
9 
4th of December --
10 
A 
Okay. 
11 
Q 
-- of 2007, and it's in this package. You noted 
12 
that --
13 
A 
Which exhibit? 
14 
MR. GONZALEZ: 34. 
15 
BY 
16 
Q 
Thank you. Exhibit 34. You note on page four --
17 
I'm sorry, page five, you -- you referred to the federalism 
18 
arguments, and you say that after considering the arguments 
19 
and conferring with the FBI and Drew Oosterbaan, you decided 
20 
to proceed with the indictment, but that you would delay 
21 
presentation of the indictment to allow the defense to appeal 
22 
to D.C. Does that mean that you didn't find the federalism 
23 
arguments sufficiently persuasive to you to change your 
24 
position? 
25 
A 
Yes, with the position defined as some concern, but 
EFTA00009057

Page 242 
1 
if we need to -- if we don't come to a resolution based on 
2 
the sheet, then we indict. 
3 
Q 
And there is a letter of --
4 
BY 
Q 
I'm sorry, when you say some concern, some concern 
6 
about the federalism argument? 
7 
A 
Yeah. Going -- going back to what we talked about 
8 
with respect to the earlier conversation about solicitation 
9 
versus trafficking, and the federal nexus. But back in July, 
10 
we had decided that we were going forward, that either there 
11 
is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an 
12 
indictment. The September meeting did not alter or shift our 
13 
position. 
14 
BY 
15 
Q 
Even though you had some federalism concerns of 
16 
your own, they didn't rise to a sufficiently high level. 
17 
A 
So, their request -- their request was to drop the 
18 
matter. 
19 
Q 
Right. 
20 
A 
And -- and --
21 
Q 
Okay. 
22 
A 
-- going back again, understood. There is -- there 
23 
is legal risk. There is witness risk. All of these. If we 
24 
can get pre-indictment resolution, good. If not, the 
25 
indictment was not a bluff. It was -- it was real. 
EFTA00009058

Page 243 
1 
Q 
So, was -- I mean, Ken Starr is of course well 
2 
known. 
3 
A 
Right. 
4 
Q 
He was solicitor general, he's -- you know, 
5 
etcetera. Did you find his arguments well set forth? 
6 
Impressive? 
7 
A 
So, you're asking for something that's 12 years 
8 
if I had to characterize, by the time this meeting took 
9 
place, there had been a fair amount of thought around these. 
10 
There had been a fair amount of -- and I at least felt 
11 
comfortable that while there was some legal risk, he 
12 
needed -- we needed -- you've got to balance the legal risk 
13 
and the precedent risk with -- with outcomes, and Mr. Epstein 
14 
should go to jail, and should register, and I felt 
15 
comfortable -- I felt comfortable enough to basically 
16 
reiterate our position that --
17 
Q 
But my -- but my question with respect to --
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
-- was, did you enjoy the give and take with --
20 
with a man of Mr. Starr's --
21 
A 
In all candor, no. 
22 
Q 
-- standing? 
23 
A 
No. 
24 
Q 
No? Not at all. 
25 
A 
Not at all, because --
EFTA00009059

Page 244 
1 
Q 
All right. 
2 
A 
-- it would have been easier to not have the 
3 
meeting in the first place. 
4 
Q 
All right. Do you recall an exchange -- was he --
5 
was -- were you the parson to whom he was directing most of 
6 
his comments? 
7 
A 
Most 
most likely. 
8 
Q 
And do you recall any exchange with him about the 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
A 
Do you mean --
15 
Q 
-- a bell? 
16 
A 
-- was he trying to butter me up? 
17 
Q 
Was he? I mean, was he? 
18 
A 
I don't -- I -- look, this was 12 years ago. I 
19 
don't recall. You know, I think as we talk about this, it's 
20 
important to note that the position did not change. Whatever 
21 
exchange there may have had, our position did not change. 
22 
Q 
Right. After this meeting, within a few days, in 
23 
furtherance of the resolution that had been offered, 
24 
and 
Lourie met with the state attorney's 
25 
office to sit down and try to work out how this thing would 
fact that -- sort of an observation that the two of you, you 
and he, were the only two people in the room who had been 
presidentially nominated and senate confirmed to any position 
so that the two of you had kind of that commonality. Does 
that ring --
EFTA00009060

Page 245 
1 
work, and mind you, this was before -- well before the NPA 
2 
is --
3 
A 
Right. 
4 
Q 
-- actually formulated. Did you learn what 
5 
happened at that meeting? Do you know how it devolved? 
6 
A 
I may have. I don't -- I don't recall, you know, 
7 
sitting here today. 
8 
Q 
All right. It's at this meeting that somehow, the 
9 
three charges that you specified -- your office specified in 
10 
the term sheet became one. So, suddenly Epstein was to plead 
11 
only to one charge, and this was agreed to by the U.S. 
12 
Attorney's Office folks who were there. Do you know how or 
13 
why that happened? 
14 
A 
I haven't the slightest idea. 
15 
Q 
If you had known -- if they had called you on the 
16 
phone, sort of the mid-trial --
17 
A 
Right. 
18 
Q 
-- call to the boss, asking what you wanted them to 
19 
do, what would you have said? 
20 
A 
So from my perspective, when I said -- you know, 
21 
when I indicated I approved this term sheet, this is the 
22 
minimum, I meant what I said. I also recognize that AUSAs in 
23 
the usual course need some degree of discretion to negotiate. 
24 
and so, my assumption after that September meeting, I think I 
25 
indicated that there was a deadline --
EFTA00009061

Page 246 
1 
Q 
mm-hmm. 
2 
A 
-- that was fairly short, was that 
and UM 
3 
and some -- working together would go back and work out an 
4 
agreement based on those terms, and you know, in the give and 
5 
take, if they think that this is an important concession, 
6 
that's within their discretion, but I would have been 
7 
comfortable sticking to that --
8 
Q 
With --
9 
A 
-- charge sheet. With -- something that drove me 
10 
is when I -- when I said something, I -- as a general matter, 
11 
I didn't bluff. I really meant what I said. 
12 
Q 
So, in that terms sheet, I mean, to be fair, what 
13 
Menchel's letter says is two years --
14 
A 
Right. 
15 
Q 
-- is the minimum. If the decision to agree to let 
16 
him plead to one as opposed to all three had no impact on 
17 
that two years, would -- would you have cared? 
18 
A 
Fair enough, and so going -- going back to where 
19 
I -- you know, to an earlier discussion -- can I get another 
20 
Red Bull? Going -- going back to earlier discussion, I think 
21 
I indicated that the charges -- the state charges I wasn't 
22 
familiar with. And so if in the give and take, those charges 
23 
changed, my focus was on two years registration and 
24 
restitution, as long as those charges were -- captured the 
25 
conduct in some appropriate way. 
EFTA00009062

1
Q 
Page 247 
So, later -- rather much later, the defense counsel 
2 
admitted that at this meeting, they thought --
3 
4 
A 
Yes. 
Q 
-- that under misinformation from the state 
5 
attorney's office that that charge that they got the U.S. 
6 
Attorney's Office, or somehow the -- the U.S. Attorney's 
7 
Office approved, the 793 -- 796.03 charge was not sex 
8 
offender registerable, and that's a -- that's pretty --
9 
that's a pretty major mistake, right? 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
A 
It is, and --
Q 
I mean, that's -- that goes to the heart of you --
A 
And --
4 
-- one of your major concerns. 
A 
And they tried -- they tried to get us to change 
15 
that, and I said no. 
16 
Q 
The defense tried to get you off sex offender 
17 
registration. 
18 
A 
Pretty vigorously. 
19 
Q 
Right? But at this point, the focus is on the 
20 
charge, and the defense is -- one might characterize it as 
21 
trying to pull a fast one by agreeing wholeheartedly to plead 
22 
to one charge, knowing or at least believing incorrectly that 
23 
it was not registerable, and the U.S. Attorney's Office not 
24 
having that belief, but thinking it was registerable. 
25 
So, there's a disconnect. There is error, and the 
EFTA00009063

Page 248 
1 
error stems, as they later learned, from the ASA herself. 
2 
So, we look at that, and wonder whether that shouldn't have 
3 
raised some concern that this plan to put things back in the 
4 
hands of the state, which had kind of mishandled the case to 
5 
being with, as at this point even not a good idea, because 
6 
they were continually -- continuing to be -- well, I won't 
7 
characterize it, but less than reliable. Was that a -- is 
8 
that a fair comment of concern? 
9 
A 
So, one question I would have is, at what point did 
10 
we become aware that there had been, first, the error was in 
11 
our favor, not the defense's favor, because 
got it 
12 
right as opposed to the ASA. 
13 
Q 
Correct. 
14 
A 
And secondly, at what point did our team become 
15 
aware of them trying to pull a fast one? Was it before or 
16 
after the signing of the NPA? 
17 
Q 
It was well after. 
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
But the -- the point here is that the V.S. 
20 
Attorney's Office folks were not as familiar with the state 
21 
procedure -- the state criminal procedure, and the ins and 
22 
outs of the sentencing and incarceration, as you learned 
23 
later. 
24 
So, didn't this put the U.S. Attorney's Office side 
25 
at a substantial disadvantage in trying to play in the 
EFTA00009064

Page 249 
1 
sandbox in which both the defense -- local defense counsel 
2 
and the ASA, were very comfortable? 
3 
A 
Possibly, although I would point out that it was 
4 
the AUSA who got it right. 
5 
Q 
Eventually. 
6 
A 
Not eventually. The AUSA --
7 
Q 
Oh. 
8 
A 
-- was correct in her analysis. 
9 
Q 
Right. 
10 
A 
So, in this case, she was more familiar than the 
11 
state attorney. 
12 
Q 
Not by practice, but by research, or --
13 
A 
By research, and so --
14 
Q 
Right. 
15 
A 
-- my point is we had good people that were able 
16 
to, if they weren't familiar with something, the research 
17 
clearly worked. 
18 
Q 
But it took, as you saw in the -- in the -- in the 
19 
process of dealing with the work release and all of that, it 
20 
took a lot of --
21 
A 
It --
22 
Q 
-- work to keep up with those --
23 
A 
It did. 
24 
errors. 
25 
A 
Which is why I say in hindsight, if, given all the 
EFTA00009065

Page 250 
1 
effort that took place after this defer to the state was 
2 
reached, if all that had been known, I really think the 
3 
analysis would have proceeded differently, because that 
4 
was -- what was a lot of work. That was probably as much 
5 
work, if not more than a trial. 
6 
Q 
Right. Right. Right. Meanwhile, the -- we'll 
7 
talk about the actual text of the NPA in a moment, but 
8 
following that -- actually, no, before it was being 
9 
finalized -- before it was finalized, 
was 
10 
working to identify a federal charge, as we discussed before. 
11 
In that process, she came up with a plan that would have 
12 
resulted -- cobbling things together in an 18 month sentence 
13 
instead of --
14 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
15 
Q 
-- 24 months. Somehow, that became the new floor. 
16 
The -- the new standard. Do you know how that came about, 
17 
and who actually agreed to that? 
18 
A 
I -- I don't. I -- I referenced the one e-mail 
19 
where I think 
says, he argued 12. 
20 
Q 
Right. 
21 
A 
I said 24. We agreed to 18. I assume in the give 
22 
and take, this was an agreement that was reached, and --
23 
Q 
But that was 18, as -- as to the potential federal 
24 
charges. It somehow became imported --
25 
A 
EFTA00009066

Page 251 
1 
Q 
-- into the state disposition. 
2 
A 
I can't -- I can't speak to that. This was -- this 
3 
was something that the "trial team" was negotiating, and from 
4 
my perspective, this is -- these were the terms that we 
5 
wanted. These were the terms that I expected if they came 
6 
back and said, no deal. Disappointed, but go forward, but 
7 
they tried to get a deal, and -- and --
8 
Q 
The defense tried? 
9 
A 
No, but our prosecutors. 
10 
Q 
Oh. 
11 
A 
And to some extent, you know, they -- and the give 
12 
and take of any negotiation, I don't think it's unfair for an 
13 
AUSA to -- to give up some things. 
14 
Q 
But did -- you had -- had stated clearly to not 
15 
only the defense team through the Menchel letter, but also I 
16 
believe at the end of the September 7 meeting, that two years 
17 
was the deal. So, did somebody come to you and say, looks 
18 
like it's going to be 18 months, and allow you to then 
19 
approve that? 
20 
A 
I don't recall if someone came to me separately or 
21 
independently of the final language. I clearly approved it 
22 
at some point. 
23 
Q 
MM-hmm. 
24 
A 
And so to the extent it was approved, that's --
25 
that's on me, but I would -- I would argue that, you know, 
EFTA00009067

Page 252 
1 
someone's negotiating, one said says 24, another side says 
2 
12. They say, let's agree to 18. To some extent as U.S. 
3 
Attorney, I think I have to back the -- the negotiating 
4 
discretion of my AUSAs. 
5 
But you -- you explained quite eloquently the 
6 
reasoning for the two year plea as being what Epstein would 
7 
have faced if he'd been prosecuted --
8 
A 
Right. 
9 
Q 
-- you know, absentia, by the state appropriately, 
10 
and then suddenly, without any apparent relationship to that 
11 
analysis, the 18 months pops up from an effort to try to get 
12 
federal charges. And so how do you -- how -- does that not 
13 
undercut the basis for the two years? 
14 
A 
So, I can provide the reasoning for the two years. 
15 
I also though think as a 
as a supervisor, as U.S. 
16 
Attorney, it's important to understand that when individuals 
17 
go out into the field, negotiations take place. And if every 
18 
time there is some give, they need to come back to the U.S. 
19 
Attorney, or there is a fear that the U.S. Attorney will not 
20 
back us. 
21 
You know, there is -- there's a certain -- I think 
22 
there's a management issue there in that if an AUSA speaking 
23 
on behalf of the U.S. makes an agreement, as long as that 
24 
agreement is within a certain range, the U.S. Attorney should 
25 
back that, because they're the ones that are in the -- on the 
EFTA00009068

Page 253 
1 
line. They're the ones that are managing the case, and it's 
2 
sort of unfair to consistently second guess those late 
3 
night -- I don't -- I don't want to characterize it --
4 
Q 
Okay. 
5 
A 
-- as a late night negotiation, but those -- that 
6 
give and take that happens sometimes in a conference room or 
7 
on the phone. 
8 
Q 
Do you know exactly what give and take occurred in 
9 
this case regarding the 18 months? 
10 
A 
I do not. I read that one document. 
11 
Q 
Okay. 
12 
A 
But I do not. 
13 
Q 
All right. Any other questions on this one? 
14 
BY 
15 
Q 
Really quick. I agree with what you're saying in 
16 
principle, but in this case, you had had a -- almost like a 
17 
mandatory, two years is the minimum that the --
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
-- V.S. Attorney will accept. Under those 
20 
circumstances, where you have come out and said, this is the 
21 
minimum we'll accept, would you have expected them to have to 
22 
come back to you to get approval for any kind of reduction in 
23 
that amount? 
24 
A 
Would I have expected them? I think Ms. 
25 
was in a tough position, because opposing counsel was coming 
EFTA00009069

Page 254 
1 
at her. It was a tough negotiation. Would I have wanted two 
2 
years? Yes. Would I fault her for agreeing to 18 months? I 
3 
don't think that's fair to her. 
4 
BY 
5 
Q 
You could have said no, right? 
6 
A 
I could have, but it was an -- but she had agreed 
7 
to it. The process had gone further down, and to some 
8 
extent, 
I think there is a need to respect that process. 
9 
That happens -- I guess I was getting -- you know, this is 
10 
not the only case where a supervisor sort of says, this is 
11 
our -- this is our standard, and -- and at some point, things 
12 
move, and you've got to provide some discretion. 
13 
Q 
All right. 
14 
BY 
15 
Q 
Do you think she misunderstood the priorities? 
16 
That she thought you wanted to get to a resolution, and so 
17 
the two years could -- could be undercut, versus taking your 
18 
words literally and saying this is the line in the sand 
19 
beyond which you should not go, even if it means kill this 
20 
kill the resolution? 
21 
A 
So, if I had to speculate, I don't think it was a 
22 
misunderstanding of priorities as opposed to opposing counsel 
23 
was exhausting, and if you go through the full record, it 
24 
really was an exhausting -- opposing counsel in this case was 
25 
very good at taking any slight millimeter, and turning it 
EFTA00009070

Page 255 
1 
into, oh, so you said we could do this, and in that back and 
2 
forth, sometimes there is a, can't we just agree in the 
3 
middle? 
4 
Q 
And I understand what you're saying, but weren't 
5 
they exhausting because the U.S. Attorney's Office would not 
6 
say no to them? And so they always believed from the get-go, 
7 
because they have a two year minimum that the --
8 
9 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- that the office is willing to then say, oh, we 
10 
can go down from there, and that that set the tone from then 
11 
on that they could continually chip away at you on virtually 
12 
every single term that came about? So, yes, they were 
13 
exhausting, but isn't that because the V.S. Attorney's Office 
14 
would not tell them no? 
15 
A 
So I would push back, because after the agreement 
16 
was signed, I would argue they did not chip away. They --
17 
they certainly kept appealing collaterally, and we can talk 
18 
about that, because there were other concerns raised there, 
19 
but once we had that September meeting, between that 
20 
September meeting and the signing of the deferment in favor 
21 
of the state, that was all negotiated by the trial team. 
22 
That wasn't a, come back to the U.S. Attorney, or come to the 
23 
first assistant. That really, to my recollection, was, go 
24 
negotiate with the state -- with the line. 
25 
Q 
Well, but there were a number of things that came 
EFTA00009071

about later on. I mean, they -- they continually griped 
2 
about the 22.55, and that got -- you know, that got modified. 
3 
A 
Later on -- and I think later on's are different 
4 
for some reasons we can talk about now or later, but there 
5 
was an attempt to work this out later on that was clearly 
6 
there. 
7 
: The --
8 
THE WITNESS But I think that's very different 
9 
than, how was the agreement negotiated? And I think that's a 
10 
very different -- a different sort of timeline. 
11 
BY 
12 
Q 
So in your mind, was she prepared to walk away from 
13 
the deal if need be? 
A 
After it was signed? 
15 
Q 
Before it was signed. 
16 
A 
Before it was signed, it honestly was, get a deal 
17 
or ultimately if we have to indict, we indict, and that's 
18 
what I said, and -- and look at it this way. After having 
19 
said that, if that really was a bluff, what would I look 
20 
like, right? I would look awful. 
21 
And so, for that reason, that was not a bluff. 
22 
That was a thought through, this is what we will do, and if 
23 
you don't agree to this, then we indict, and we indict. You 
24 
can't make those kinds of statements and not follow through. 
25 
The office loses credibility if you do. 
EFTA00009072

Page 257 
1 
Q 
Right, but you can keep giving on certain terms. 
2 
A 
But we 
and my point is we did not give, with the 
3 
exception of that 24 to 18, we did not give. 
4 
BY 
5 
Q 
Well, you also gave up two charges. 
6 
A 
Again, I'm thinking of a two years, registration, 
7 
restitution, and so with the exception of that 24 to 18, we 
8 
did not give. 
9 
Q 
I want to go back. This morning, we were talking 
10 
about our tracks, and we talked about the legal track, and a 
11 
little bit about the evidence track. There's another aspect 
12 
of the evidence track that is in play here, because there was 
13 
a substantial type of evidence, and the question is, to what 
14 
extent were you aware of this. 
15 
In October of 2005, the local police executed a 
16 
search warrant on Epstein's residence, and among things they 
17 
found there were cables and cords where there had been 
18 
computers -- computer equipment, video surveillance, cameras, 
19 
and CPUs, all of that, that computer based stuff. It had 
20 
been removed, forgetting why necessarily. If you look at 
21 
Exhibit 29, were you aware of that, by the way? That that 
22 
had occurred? 
23 
A 
I was aware that the state had gathered evidence, 
24 
but not much more --
25 
Q 
Beyond that. 
EFTA00009073

Page 258 
1 
A 
-- beyond that. 
2 
Q 
Okay. So, 29 is --
3 
4 
A 
I'm sorry, I'm on 21. 
Q 
Wait a minute, this is not the one I'm looking for. 
5 
73? Let's do -- do you know what? Okay. That's not -- this 
6 
is not the exhibit I'm looking for, and the numbers are a 
7 
little bit messed up. 
8 
There is a -- an e-mail, which I may or may not be 
9 
able to put my hands on -- in which 
informs 
10 
you that she really wants to get her hands on important 
11 
potential -- on computer evidence, that it's important 
12 
potential evidence, and she had a plan to get it. 
13 
So, the question is whether you knew at the time 
14 
that there was -- that the investigators had identified this 
15 
computer evidence as being out there, and that they believed 
16 
it contained a potentially very significant evidence against 
17 
Epstein, computers, surveillance cameras, given his 
18 
activity --
19 
A 
Right. 
20 
Q 
-- in his home --
21 
: He's not on it. 
22 
BY 
23 
Q 
All right. She did not inform you. She informed 
24 
someone else that we -- she informed Sloman and Manche]. on 
25 
July 3rd, and Lourie. My apologies. You're not on this. 
EFTA00009074

Page 259 
1 
Where she advises them that she wants -- we want to -- "we 
2 
want to get the computer equipment that was removed from 
3 
Epstein's home prior to the state search warrant as soon as 
4 
possible." So, there was the stuff out there, and 
5 
A 
Right. 
6 
Q 
-- as of July, there was an abiding keen interest 
7 
in getting it, and the defense team was resisting the 
8 
prosecutors efforts to get it. Were you aware of that at 
9 
all? 
10 
A 
So, you -- I think you asked about that in your 
11 
questions to me. 
12 
Q 
Right, I did. 
13 
A 
I have no recollection of -- of this computer 
14 
evidence that --
15 
Q 
All right. 
16 
A 
Did the question say that -- without getting into 
17 
specifics, that there was a grand jury issue around this? 
18 
Q 
It does. It --
19 
A 
I don't have that --
20 
Q 
It is addressed in the non-prosecution agreement if 
21 
you look at the final non-pros --
22 
A 
Yeah. I don't have --
23 
Q 
It's referred to --
24 
A 
The question that you asked, what question was 
25 
that? 
EFTA00009075

Page 260 
1 
Q 
The question was whether you were aware that that 
2 
was something that the prosecutors wanted to get? 
3 
A 
I don't -- I don't have a recollection of some 
4 
computer evidence. 
5 
Q 
All right, and -- and --
6 
A 
But I think -- is there? 
7 
Q 
Are you --
8 
A 
What was the question? 
9 
Q 
aware that 
was instructed by her managers 
10 
to delay her efforts to get this computer evidence, because 
11 
the defense were resisting those efforts, and it became an 
12 
issue of -- an issue that was in play in the negotiations? 
13 
A 
I have -- I have no recollection of that. 
14 
Q 
Okay. 
15 
A 
If you can give me one second? 
16 
Q 
Sure. 
17 
A 
Pending federal -- and so, your question said that 
18 
there was litigation pending in federal court relating to the 
19 
U.S. Attorney's efforts to obtain --
20 
Q 
Yeah. 
21 
A 
-- computer evidence? 
22 
Q 
Without going into further detail. 
23 
A 
I -- I have no recollection of any litigation 
24 
pending in federal court regarding that. 
25 
Q 
All right, and were you -- did anyone suggest to 
EFTA00009076

Page 261 
1 
you and your team that the -- or, getting to a plea deal was 
2 
premature, because it -- you needed to get this evidence 
3 
first, so that you knew whether you had potentially some very 
4 
important evidence again Epstein? 
5 
A 
I have no recollection, and if anything --
6 
Q 
Okay. 
7 
A 
-- I think there was a desire to move quickly as 
8 
opposed to slowly. 
9 
Q 
On the plea? 
10 
A 
Yes. 
11 
Q 
And do you -- do you know where that energy came 
12 
from? Who was --
13 
A 
14 
Q 
--wanting to --
15 
A 
I don't, but --
16 
Q 
move quickly? 
17 
A 
as I recall -- so, for example, when we were 
18 
setting up the meeting in September, there was a -- a request 
19 
to set it up in August as opposed to September, and we had to 
20 
push it back to September because of vacations or something. 
21 
Q 
All right. So, in addition to not getting the 
22 
computer evidence, the government curtailed the investigation 
23 
to a large extent, despite finding more victims. There were 
24 
witnesses who were not interviewed, things that were not 
25 
searched, property that wasn't searched, target letters not 
EFTA00009077

Page 262 
1 
served. Do you -- so, these all would have been steps taken 
2 
by the FBI to enhance the federal investigation, right? As 
3 
opposed to back to the state --
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
BY 
13 
Q 
Were you aware of all -- of those steps that were 
14 
being foregone, or foreclosed? 
15 
A 
No. My -- my assumption would have been, we may 
16 
have to go to trial, and so we should continue to develop the 
17 
basis for trial. So, if I could, for example, I think I --
18 
after Drew came down, I said if we go to trial, can you be on 
19 
the trial team? I cite that, because I'm thinking, we may 
20 
have to go to trial. 
21 
Q 
Right. 
22 
A 
Why not get Drew who's from Miami on the trial 
23 
team? 
24 
Q 
So, is it -- is it your understanding that the 
25 
federal investigation, notwithstanding the drafting of this 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- case that this was sort of --
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
-- being returned to. 
A 
Right. 
Q 
Was this --
MR. TODD: Are you asking Alex if he's aware of all 
the things you just said? 
EFTA00009078

Page 263 
1 
NPA, was still continuing? 
2 
A 
Yes. We -- you know, my understanding is you run 
3 
these on parallel tracks, and again, I'm -- I'm sitting here 
4 
inviting the head of CEOS to be part of the trial team, and 
5 
talking about how to formulate the trial team. 
6 
Q 
Okay. 
7 
A 
That -- that implies that I was clearly thinking we 
8 
might be going to trial. 
9 
Q 
All right. When you first received the draft of 
10 
the non-pros agreement, and this is 16a, it's a draft by 
11 
. Do you know who came up with the -- the --
12 
it sounds like you didn't, but who came up with the name or 
13 
the moniker non-prosecution agreement? 
14 
A 
i do not. 
15 
Q 
Do you know what this was modelled on, if anything? 
16 
Where it --
17 
A 
I --
18 
Q 
What the genesis was? 
19 
A 
I do not. I noticed from the contemporaneous e-
20 
mails that initially it was done differently, and I think it 
21 
was 
Lourie who said write it as a contract, or I think 
22 
there is -- there is an e-mail to that effect. Someone may 
23 
recall it better than I, but --
24 
Q 
This version of September 10, which is the first 
25 
business day after that --
EFTA00009079

Page 264 
1 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
-- September 7th meeting, from
3 
goes to her management up through you, and you do a rewrite 
4 
almost right away, adding original state charges which at 
5 
that point were all still in play, and you also added -- this 
6 
is Exhibit 16b -- a statement that it would be Epstein's job 
7 
to move the state to add additional charges, and that -- that 
8 
latter piece is on page three, just below paragraph eight. 
9 
So, you were --
10 
11 
12 
A 
Can I -- can I back up a second? 
Q 
Sure. 
A 
When you say I did a rewrite, is there some 
13 
indication of what I did a rewrite of? 
14 
Q 
Yes. If you compare the two --
15 
A 
Right. 
16 
Q 
-- there's -- there are things that are bracketed 
17 
in yellow in Exhibit 16b, which represent --
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
-- the changes from 16a. 
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
Okay. So, those are the two things that are 
22 
different, and they're referenced in your -- your message --
23 
A 
Yeah. 
24 
Q 
-- at the beginning. We bracketed them just to 
25 
make it easier for you to -- to recognize --
EFTA00009080

Page 265 
1 
A 
Right. 
2 
Q 
-- that. So, my point is that right from the 
3 
beginning, you were participating in the process -- in the 
4 
drafting process. 
5 
A 
Oh. So -- so, I would -- I would characterize that 
6 
as not participating in the drafting process, but approving a 
7 
draft. There is -- there is a --
8 
Q 
I --
9 
A 
-- slight --
10 
Q 
-- I did a small --
11 
A 
-- difference. 
12 
Q 
-- rewrite. 
13 
A 
Yeah. And so, something comes -- here's how I 
14 
would distinguish. Someone that's participating in the 
15 
drafting process is sitting at the table with two or three 
16 
people, drafting it as they go, versus something goes through 
17 
the management chain, and someone in the supervisory chain 
18 
says, can you change A, B, or C? 
19 
Q 
All right. 
20 
A 
I -- I clearly -- you know, here and in other 
21 
places, it looks like I'm inserting the same themes, which is 
22 
deferring to the state -- let's mention the state charges 
23 
Q 
14M-hmm. 
24 
A 
-- and we can't force the state to do anything. 
25 
And so, I -- I'm adding to this. I'm clearly aware of it and 
EFTA00009081

Page 266 
1 
approving it, but I wouldn't say that I was drafting. 
2 
Q 
Fair enough. Did you read it? 
3 
A 
I would assume that I read it, or else I wouldn't 
4 
have edited it. 
5 
Q 
All right. So, we have a draft from 
6 
working draft on September 10 with a small rewrite from you. 
7 
There is in the Exhibit 17 series indication that -- of the 
8 
kind of activity that 
was going through to come up 
9 
with a federal plea, but eventually she and the defense 
10 
attorney who is most actively working on this, Jay Lefkowitz, 
11 
turn back to the NPA, and if you look at 17d, just to make 
12 
the sort of staffing clear, you know, of course 
13 
has left, 
is going on vacation as of September 
14 
15, and so 
Lourie has helped finalize. So, the 
15 
finalizing of the NPA, the final version of which is in 
16 
Exhibit 22, falls to 
with 
, right? 
17 
A 
Yes. 
18 
Q 
Okay, and 
puts you on notice in 18b in that 
19 
process. This e-mail in 18b is sort of a follow on to 18a. 
20 
Do you see it comes one minute after your e-mail in 18a? 
21 
It's a response from her to you, only in which she makes note 
22 
that the defense, "tried to reopen all the loopholes that I 
23 
had sewn shut." 
24 
A 
Yes. 
25 
Q 
So, it's fair to say that you're kind of -- you're 
EFTA00009082

Page 267 
1 
on notice that they're being difficult? 
2 
3 
A 
I -- I -- that's fair. 
Q 
Okay. In the course of that being difficult, 19a 
4 
is an e-mail to you from
 on September 18 in which she 
5 
represents that -- or, explains that the defense is -- is --
6 
that things are kind of falling apart with the negotiations, 
7 
and she fears the deal is going to fall apart completely. 
8 
MR. TODD: Should we take a quick break here? 
9 
You're losing your voice. 
10 
: I'm fine. 
11 
MR. TODD: You could probably use a minute. 
12 
: All right. We'll take a break. 
13 
THE WITNESS All right. 
14 
: A four minute break. 
15 
MR. TODD: Four minutes, that's --
16 
: Okay. 
17 
(Off the record.) 
18 
BY 
19 
Q 
Back on the record. Looking at Exhibit 19c, you 
20 
say -- you write to 
regarding whether you're 
21 
available to -- at a time when she's going to be hashing out 
22 
language. You advise her that -- but I -- "I don't think I 
23 
should be part of negotiations. I'd rather leave that to you 
24 
if that's okay." 
25 
A 
Yes. 
EFTA00009083

Page 268 
1 
Q 
Why did you say that to her? 
2 
A 
Because she was the line lawyer involved, and I 
3 
thought -- I think it's important for a U.S. Attorney to, 
4 
absent truly exceptional circumstances, to not get involved 
5 
in sort of the negotiations. You can meet, like I did in 
6 
September, reaffirm the position of the office, back your 
7 
AUSA, but ultimately, I think your trial lawyer needs 
8 
discretion to do their job. 
9 
Q 
At this point, of course we know 
10 
vacation. 
11 
A 
Right. 
12 
Q 
And you were aware, were you not, that 
is on 
Lourie 
13 
was about to decamp for Washington? In other words, he left 
14 
at the end of September --
15 
A 
Yes. 
16 
Q 
-- to become the chief of staff and principle 
17 
deputy, assistant attorney general --
18 
A 
Correct. 
19 
Q 
-- for 
20 
A 
Yes. 
21 
Q 
-- who headed the criminal division. Okay, so it 
22 
was really just the two of them at this point, and with 
23 
nobody apparently involved between them and you. 
24 
A 
So, fair, but when you say just the two of them, 
25 
is an incredibly experienced lawyer. So, to say just 
EFTA00009084

Page 269 
1 
the two of them is not to take -- not -- should not imply 
2 
that there was an experience in that --
3 
4 
5 
6 
Q 
A 
-- table. 
Q 
I certainly in no way intended to --
A 
Right. 
7 
8 
A 
Fair. 
Q 
-- suggest that. 
10 
A 
Fair enough. 
• 
Looking at 19d, in which 
is on page 
• 
two, looking at the latest draft from 
meaning
:3 
, and this is in the -- in the -- in the throes of 
14 
negotiating the NPA. 
is essentially telling you 
15 
he agrees with 
observations that the defense are just 
16 
up to all kinds of nonsense in this deal, and constantly 
17 
changing their terms, and just not apparently negotiating or 
18 
dealing with these warring drafts with the drafting process 
19 
in good faith. 
20 
Again, that's my characterization, but 
21 
says to you in this e-mail, "I suggest we simply tell him, 
that his counteroffer is rejected, and that we 
intend to move forward with our case." Right? And then 
response is interesting. You say to him, why don't we 
just -- why don't we just call him? Tell him, one, you 
your 
EFTA00009085

Page 270 
agree, and then change things. Two --
2 
A 
You being III agrees and changes things? 
3 
Q 
Correct. Tell him you agree, meaning, 
agrees? 
4 
A 
No. No. 
5 
Q 
I see. 
6 
A 
Yeah. 
7 
Q 
Tell him --
8 
A 
Tell him, you, III, agree, and you change things. 
9 
Q 
I see. 
10 
A 
That is not acceptable to us, and is in bad faith. 
11 
Stop it, or we'll just indict, and then try to work it out. 
2 
Q 
So, is the try to work it out -- if the -- if 
13 
numbers one and two are what you should tell -- what 
:4 
should tell 
, is number three something 
15 
should tell 
or what you're telling III"? Try to work it 
16 
out? 
17 
A 
It's what I'm -- what I'm -- what I'm telling 
8 
Q 
okay. So, just to be clear, you say, tell him, 
19 
meaning you, 
, tell Jay, number one --
20 
A 
So --
21 
Q 
-- and number two, but number three is then what 
22 
you're instructing 
to do? I --
23 
A 
Yes. 
24 
Q 
-- I'm just trying to understand. 
25 
A 
Yes. So --
EFTA00009086

1 
Q 
Okay. 
2 
A 
So, my understanding of this is, they're being 
3 
difficult. Hey, this isn't the first time that an attorney 
4 
agrees to something and then goes back and tries to pull a 
5 
fast one. So, tell him you're onto this, that they need to 
6 
stop it, or we'll indict, but then that we'll try to -- you 
7 
know, 
should try to work it out. 
8 
Q 
Okay. 
A 
But they need to stop this tactic. 
10 
Q 
Did you really think that was going to be effective 
11 
with this defense --
12 
A 
I don't know. 
13 
Q 
-- team? 
14 
A 
You know, I think one of the hard things with this 
15 
is, if it was right on September 6th, it remained right, 
16 
irrespective of really -- I think I say, sorry, I know it's a 
17 
pain. 
18 
Q 
You do. 
19 
A 
This negotiation was a pain, but if it was the 
20 
right position, the fact that you've got annoying counsel on 
21 
the other side doesn't it make it less of a right position. 
22 
You tell them stop being annoying, you try to work it out, 
23 
and if not, then you indict. 
24 
Q 
All right, and is that sort of --
25 
A 
You had a question? 
EFTA00009087

Page 272 
1 
: I was going to, but 
was going 
2 
ahead. 
3 
BY 
4 
Q 
Is that -- is that consistent with your sort of way 
5 
of doing business, being even, and working it out? 
6 
A 
Yeah. This is our position. It's not a bluff. 
7 
It's what we want. You work it out. People yell and scream 
8 
on the other side. You work it out. If not, then we indict. 
9 
Q 
What would have been the tipping point for you? 
10 
What would have caused you to say, okay, I agree with you, 
11 
I agree with you, 
. Let's indict? 
12 
A 
So, it's really difficult to speculate, but I think 
13 
the tipping point would have been a failure to reach -- it 
14 
was pretty clear. Jail time, registration, restitution. 
15 
Okay, we moved from 24 to 18 months. That was a give and 
16 
take. But ultimately, if they came back and said, we can't 
17 
agree to these terms, then we indict. 
18 
Q 
All right. 
19 
BY 
20 
Q 
It seemed like your troops were telling you, we've 
21 
reached the end of our rope. We really want to just go 
22 
forward and indict. 
23 
A 
Right. 
24 
Q 
And you were coming back with, tell them again that 
25 
the defense is being difficult, but I want you to work it 
EFTA00009088

Page 273 
1 
out. Does that tell your troops basically that where your 
2 
priority is, you want them to get to this resolution, and if 
3 
they have to give up stuff, it's okay -- it's really okay, 
4 
but you want this resolution? 
5 
A 
So, it's not if you have to give up stuff. I'm not 
6 
telling them to give up stuff. I'm not telling them to 
7 
negotiate things away, but I think -- the dynamic from my 
8 
perspective is incredibly -- so, there's a tactic that 
9 
counsel sometimes take where they negotiate, and then they 
10 
try to come back and renegotiate, and that is, to my 
11 
thinking, one of the most annoying tactics that you can have, 
12 
and it -- and it creates a lot of -- of frustration, and what 
13 
I'm trying to say is, look, they might be frustrating folks, 
14 
but if this had been worked out -- so -- so, looking at this, 
15 
we thought we had an agreement, and then they changed things, 
16 
and I'm saying, look, if you thought you had an agreement, 
17 
tell them you had an agreement. 
18 
Don't let them change things. I understand it's 
19 
frustrating to you, but if it was right two weeks ago, the 
20 
fact that they are frustrating attorneys doesn't change the 
21 
underlying legal analysis. The attorney's behavior doesn't 
22 
inform the rightness or wrongness of a certain disposition, 
23 
to a point. 
24 
BY 
25 
Q 
What's that point? 
EFTA00009089

1 
Page 274 
A 
So, I think after the -- now I'm calling it an NPA. 
2 
I was personally very frustrated with the failure to report 
3 
on October 20, and had I envisioned that entire collateral 
4 
attack, I think I would have looked at this very differently. 
5 
6 
Q 
In what respect? 
A 
To the extent that this was -- going back to, for 
7 
example, the public corruption prosecutions that we had, one 
8 
of the values of it was to have a public figure stand up and 
9 
say, I did this, and plead. 
10 
One of the values was the, you know, avoiding a 
11 
long and messy legal process. And so when you put all of 
12 
that together, those -- you know, this is why I say it's not 
13 
quite -- this was the factor that we'd consider, that it's 
14 
all of this put together, and in something that could have 
15 
been very positive for the victims and for sending a signal, 
16 
as it dragged on, became exhausting and negative for the 
17 
victims. 
18 
It put us in a position of what do we do with 
19 
notifications. It put us in the position of a lot of appeals 
20 
to Washington. It put us in the position of having to deal 
21 
with complicated legal issues that actually got more messy in 
22 
terms of how does a federal 22.55 relate to a -- to a state 
23 
charge, and had all of that been known, I do think this would 
24 
have proceeded differently. 
25 
Q 
Differently in what way? 
EFTA00009090

Page 275 
1 
A 
So -- so, if I had factored all of that -- like, I 
2 
can't predict it's --
3 
Q 
Right. 
4 
A 
-- what I would have done, but I think if I had 
5 
known all that, this could have proceeded very differently. 
6 
I was very frustrated with the October to June time period. 
7 
Q 
So, if you had been back in that timeframe in early 
8 
September, looking at this with, I don't know, what, Harry 
9 
Potter character it is --
10 
A 
Right. 
11 
Q 
-- but whoever can see into the future, and -- and 
12 
anticipated or foresaw --
13 
A 
Right. 
14 
Q 
-- what would have happened, would you have simply 
15 
said, look, we're not going to go the state route, we'll go 
16 
the federal route? 
17 
A 
Quite possibly. 
18 
Q 
All right. 
19 
A 
And let me sort of -- we'll probably get into it, 
20 
but at some point, I do think the post versus the pre-
21 
signature time period was different for any number of 
22 
reasons, and we'll probably want to talk about that. 
23 
Q 
All right. We will, but now, I'd like to turn to 
24 
some of the terms of the --
25 
A 
Fair. 
EFTA00009091

Page 276 
1 
Q 
the NPA, because you did make -- let me -- let 
2 
me make sure that this is correct 
3 
: You skipped this one. 
4 
BY 
5 
Q 
Oh yeah, before that -- thank you, my colleague 
6 
reminds me 19e is an exhibit that has a -- an exchange 
7 
between you and 
Lourie about the -- at a time when the 
8 
plea agreement -- the federal plea agreement --
9 
A 
Right. 
10 
Q 
-- was still in play, and the issue is whether you 
11 
should sign it, and --
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- you didn't want to, because you never do, but 
14 
you say at the bottom, we should only go forward if the trial 
15 
team supports and signs this agreement. What did you mean by 
16 
that? The -- the first part of it? 
17 
A 
So -- so, what I meant by that was I got something 
18 
that the -- that is -- the document was unusual. So, my 
19 
signature appearing on this document is not in and of itself 
20 
unusual. 
21 
Q 
And this would have been the plea agreement -- not 
22 
the federal plea agreement, not the -- or was this about the 
23 
NPA? 
24 
A 
This was about the NPA. 
25 
Q 
Okay. 
EFTA00009092

Page 277 
1 
A 
Right, and so the NPA had my signature. Now, the 
2 
NPA's almost too generous. 
3 
Q 
MM-hmm. 
4 
A 
So, that in and of itself is not indicative of 
5 
something, but it does raise my concern. Is this something 
6 
that ultimately the trial team does not feel comfortable 
7 
with? And if it's something they don't feel comfortable 
8 
with, then they should speak up and let me know, because we 
9 
shouldn't go forward with it. 
10 
Q 
And did you ever have a conversation or a 
11 
discussion about that issue, other than mentioning it? 
12 
A 
Not -- not to my recollection. I would --
13 
Q 
Okay. 
14 
A 
-- assume based on this that 
would read it and 
15 
would take me at my word and say, look, if -- I think you're 
16 
going in the wrong direction, Alex. You know, I think you're 
17 
going in the wrong direction, or I'm uncomfortable with it. 
18 
Q 
Okay. All right. 
19 
BY 
20 
Q 
Did you ever have a direct conversation with 
21 
about wanting her to sign the agreement as opposed 
22 
to yourself? 
23 
A 
I -- I did not. This was my -- my communications 
24 
with 
, and -- and I really meant that if at the end of 
25 
the day, my team isn't comfortable, then you shouldn't go 
EFTA00009093

Page 278 
forward. 
2 
Q 
You never recall hearing from 
that she was 
3 
not comfortable moving forward with the plea agreement? 
4 
BY 
5 
Q 
The NPA? 
6 
A 
I did not hear -- I don't recall hearing from 
7 
that she was not comfortable. I know that at various points 
8 
she became frustrated. At various points, 
became 
9 
frustrated, but they were negotiating this. If at some point 
10 
they did not -- they thought this was a mistake, or wrong, or 
11 
unjust, I would think that they would tell me. 
12 
Q 
What would you have done? 
13 
A 
Sit down and really have a serious conversation 
14 
about where this is going, and sit down and hear them out, 
15 
again, even if -- at this late phase. 
16 
Q 
Right. 
17 
A 
Would be -- I would -- I would think that that's 
18 
what I would have done. 
19 
Q 
All right. Let's turn to the NPA. What is it? 
20 
Exhibit 22? Did you read it? We know that you made some 
21 
final tweaks to it. 22. 
22 
A 
So --
23 
Q 
Is the final -- as signed --
24 
A 
22. And so, I would -- again, I don't have an 
25 
independent recollection of reading it. I would not have 
EFTA00009094

Page 279 
1 
made tweaks to it without reading it. 
2 
Q 
Okay. 
3 
A 
And so, I think you can infer that I read it. 
4 
Q 
All right, and let me say, you -- you were clerk to 
5 
an appellate -- a very eminent appellate judge, and you 
6 
did -- did you do appellate work --
7 
A 
I did. 
8 
Q 
-- yourself? So, you were somebody who's an 
9 
appellate lawyer, who has that experience at a high level, is 
10 
often more sensitive to words, and phrasings, and to 
11 
documents, contents, than might be, again, to be -- to 
12 
caricaturize a little bit, but a more of a shoot from the hip 
13 
trial attorney who spends his days, you know, in a -- in a 
14 
rough and tumble courtroom, and is it fair to say that you 
15 
were more of the former, and more --
16 
A 
So, I would push back. I think that's not 
17 
respecting the talent of the trial lawyer, and particularly 
18 
on these types of agreements or documents, these are folks 
19 
that sort of have expertise, because even if this was sui 
20 
generis, they have seen a lot of this. 
21 
Q 
I am not suggesting that 
and 
22 
Lourie --
23 
A 
Right. 
24 
Q 
-- were not up to this. 
25 
A 
Right. 
EFTA00009095

Page 280 
1 
Q 
Because certainly she also had a lot of appellate 
2 
experience. I'm simply noting that -- that this seems to be 
3 
sort of in your wheelhouse. 
4 
A 
What -- look, I apologize. Whether -- I'm not sure 
5 
what in my wheelhouse means. I -- you know, I appear to have 
6 
read this. I suggested some edits. As I would have 
7 
approached this document, my assumption would have been I'm 
8 
looking at it from my earlier concerns, that -- the policy 
9 
level concerns. 
10 
Does it capture that we're deferring to the state? 
11 
Going back to the put in the petite policy versus not. Does 
12 
it capture the policy concerns of -- of appropriately 
13 
understanding that we can't force the state to do something? 
14 
And does it capture the essential elements of the terms that 
15 
we had looked for, the 
16 
Q 
All right. 
17 
A 
-- you know, the imprisonment, registration, and 
18 
restitution. 
19 
Q 
All right. So, one of the things that is a little 
20 
striking that's different from the original draft NPA, even 
21 
as amended by you. So, let's pull out the 16b. Is that --
22 
is what I would call the non-admission of guilty, so, in 
23 
the -- in the first page of 16b, the first paragraph that's 
24 
the first clause after the one through five statutes listing, 
25 
in 16b, reads, "It appearing that Epstein has accepted 
EFTA00009096

Page 2 
1 
responsibility for his behavior by his signature on this 
2 
agreement." 
3 
A 
I'm sorry, you're on 16b? 
4 
Q 
16b. 
5 
A 
Okay. It appearing, yes. 
6 
Q 
Okay. So, his is -- and this is not 
I mean, 
7 
this seems to be fairly typical sort of plea agreement 
8 
language, right? 
9 
10 
Q 
And if you look at the top of the final NPA, 22, 
11 
the third, it appearing clause 
12 
A 
I'm sorry. Where --
13 
Q 
Fine. 
14 
A 
-- where are you? 
15 
Q 
16b. 
16 
A 
Right. 
17 
Q 
Has 
18 
A 
The third, it appearing? 
19 
Q 
It appearing he has -- the 
down at the bottom. 
20 
A 
Yeah. 
21 
Q 
It says -- refers to at the --
22 
A 
It has accepted responsibility. 
23 
Q 
second up. 
24 
A 
Yes. 
25 
Q 
Exactly. He's accepted responsibility. 
EFTA00009097

Page 282 
1 
2 
3 
4 
A 
Right. 
Q 
And then above in the fourth, it appearing --
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
-- it references the fact that, it appearing, 
5 
"Epstein has committed offenses against the United States." 
6 
7 
A 
Yes. 
Q 
Okay? So, he -- there's a sense of acceptance of 
8 
responsibility. In the final NPA, which is 22 in your right 
9 
hand, the --
10 
A 
Right. 
11 
Q 
-- third it appearing clause says nothing about 
12 
Epstein committing offenses. It simply references the U.S. 
13 
Attorney's Office and the FBI having conducted their own 
14 
investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that 
15 
may have been committed by Epstein, including --
16 
A 
Right. 
17 
Q 
-- the enumerated statutes. And then following the 
18 
enumerated federal statutes, there's no reference at all to 
19 
Epstein accepting responsibility. Do you -- do you -- do you 
20 
view that -- the removal of that acceptance of responsibility 
21 
to be something that was appropriate? 
22 
A 
So, trying to reconstruct, the focus was on -- and 
23 
I know I'm repeating myself, but jail time, registration, 
24 
restitution. Whether he accepted responsibility for a 
25 
federal or for a state, I think my focus would have been on, 
EFTA00009098

Page 283 
1 
these were the terms. Does this encompass those terms? 
2 
Q 
So, as that concession is not something material as 
3 
far as -- I don't want to use the legal term material, but it 
4 
wasn't important --
5 
A 
So -- so --
6 
Q 
-- to your objectives? 
7 
A 
So --
8 
Q 
Is that right? 
9 
A 
First, I'm not sure -- so, it wasn't a concession 
10 
from that -- that -- those four bullets, right? It was a 
11 
concession from an earlier draft. 
12 
Q 
Right. 
13 
A 
And so to say it's not important is, again, there 
14 
was an early draft. It changed. The focus was in any give 
15 
and take, drafts change. The focus was, did he go to jail? 
16 
Did he have to register? Did we have restitution? 
17 
Q 
All right. 
18 
BY 
19 
Q 
Do you remember noticing that change, and thinking 
20 
it --
21 
A 
22 
Q 
-- just doesn't matter? 
23 
A 
I don't. In all -- in all candor, until right now, 
24 
I was not aware of that -- of that change. I doubt I would 
25 
have taken two documents and sort of put them side by side, 
EFTA00009099

Page 284 
1 
as opposed to, does this capture what we're trying to get to. 
2 
BY 
3 
Q 
So, does that --
4 
A 
I was aware of the 24 to 18. 
5 
Q 
Me-ham. 
6 
A 
But up until this question, I wasn't aware of that 
7 
change, to my recollection. 
8 
Q 
So --
9 
BY 
Q 
And you're aware of the 24 to 18 because you 
noticed it in the NPA, or because somebody told you 
separately? Or do you know? 
A 
I can't -- I can't say other than I was aware. 
BY 
Q 
In the final NPA on page five, there's a series of 
things that are included at the bottom of that page, in that 
long paragraph, and the one that I want to focus on is the 
16 
immunity portion. 
19 
That was certainly not in the original draft 
20 
proposed by the U.S. Attorney's Office. In this paragraph, 
21 
the United States agrees, "That it will not institute any 
22 
criminal charges against any potential coconspirators of 
23 
Epstein, including but not limited t 
Did you notice 
25 
that provision? 
EFTA00009100

1 
Page 285 
A 
I -- I don't recall focusing on the coconspirator 
2 
provision. To the extent I reviewed this coconspirator 
3 
provision, I can speculate that my thinking would have been 
4 
the focus is on Epstein's -- Epstein's going to jail. 
Whether some of his employees go to jail, or other, lesser 
6 
involved, is not the focus of this. 
7 
Q 
All right. This particular provision, as you know, 
8 
has been --
9 
A 
It has --
10 
Q 
-- enormously --
11 
A 
-- generated --
12 
Q 
-- criticized. 
13 
A 
Enormous, yes. 
14 
Q 
For a number of reasons. One of which is that it 
15 
is blanket transactional immunity. It gives blanket immunity 
16 
to unnamed, unidentified --
17 
A 
Yes. 
18 
Q 
-- potential coconspirators. People who, even in 
19 
the future, if evidence is developed against them, as long as 
20 
they could be considered coconspirators of Epstein in this 
21 
conduct, they have a get out of jail free card. Do you have 
22 
any idea where that came from? 
23 
A 
I don't, and I don't want to characterize it as 
24 
giving -- I understand how it could be read that way in the 
25 
record. I don't want to characterize it, but I don't know 
EFTA00009101

Page 286 
1 
where this could have come from. 
2 
I was -- I would have reviewed this for the policy 
3 
concerns. Did it do the -- the sort of the bullet points, 
4 
and my assumption, rightly or wrongly, would have been that 
5 al 
and 
would have looked at this, and that this 
6 
was -- was appropriate. I understand your point. 
7 
Q 
All right, and I believe the point you were 
8 
referring to is that when I use the term jail -- get out of 
9 
jail free card, that you recognize this is limited to your 
10 
district? 
11 
A 
And that's an important point --
12 
Q 
Of course. 
13 
A 
-- to recognize. 
14 
Q 
Of course, but nonetheless, this does give blanket 
15 
immunity to people -- you have no idea who they might be, 
16 
correct? If you had focused on it, would that have raised 
17 
some question in your mind? 
18 
A 
If -- if there was a discussion like what we're 
19 
having here, then it very possibly could have raised. It's 
20 
difficult to say it would have, but I understand your 
21 
concern. 
22 
Q 
All right, and the named individuals, 
23 
are all 
24 
individuals who were described in the pros memo and so on, 
25 
and the pros memo does identify that at least one of these 
EFTA00009102

Page 287 
1 
women herself engaged in sexual activity with minor -- with 
2 
minor girls. 
3 
4 
5 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
So that she has liability in and of her own --
A 
So, I don't have an independent recollection of 
6 
that, but when I reviewed the pros memo, I did notice that. 
7 
Q 
All right. Now, you told us this morning that you 
8 
have no recollection of that actually having read the pros 
9 
memo back at that time. 
10 
A 
I think what I said was I don't have a recollection 
11 
of whether I did or did not read the pros memo. I have 
12 
since, when you've provided it, read it, and I note that it 
13 
does reference her. 
14 
Q 
Having read it now, does that change your view of 
15 
anything that we've talked about so far today? 
16 
A 
So, reading it 12 years later, knowing all of this, 
17 
possibly, and part of it is I do think we approach these 
18 
cases differently, and I think these cases would play out 
19 
very differently in court today. I think it's very difficult 
20 
to sort of go back and recreate a thought process from 12 
21 
years ago. 
22 
Q 
And if you were relying back then on the 
23 
characterization and summary and recounting of this case to 
24 
you by your people -- your senior people, 
25 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
EFTA00009103

Page 288 
1 
Q 
-- and in particular, 
2 
A 
Right. 
3 
Q 
would you -- do you -- do you have a 
did --
4 
did anyone in that ground, including IIIIILourie, in any way 
5 
to your recollection characterize this case as not serious, 
6 
or as trivial, or as involving non-important -- unimportant 
7 
victims? In any way try to diminish either the conduct or 
8 
the victims? 
9 
A 
Not to my recollection. I -- I do think there was 
10 
a concern as to how the victims would present in court, given 
11 
impeachment, and given contradictory statements, but that's 
12 
different than trivializing the case. 
13 
Q 
All right. Okay. Back to the immunity provision. 
14 
Were you aware that none of the four named coconspirators had 
15 
cooperated? 
16 
A 
I was not. To my recollection. 
17 
Q 
And do you recall any other case in which blanket 
18 
immunity in the V.S. Attorney's Office --
19 
A 
Right. 
20 
Q 
-- was -- in which blanket immunity, really 
21 
without -- virtually without limitation --
22 
A 
I -- SO, I --
23 
Q 
-- was granted? 
24 
A 
I don't recall discussion around this provision, 
25 
and a general matter, I did not discuss the -- in typical 
EFTA00009104

Page 289 
1 
cases that came -- that bubbled up to my level, it was -- the 
2 
focus was on who the prime, you know, target is, and not on 
3 
what we would do with the coconspirators. And so, I don't 
4 
recall, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's just 
5 
not typically something that I got involved with. 
6 
Q 
And likewise, non -- immunity being given to non-
7 
cooperating coconspirators, or codefendants? Is that 
8 
something that was done in your office? 
9 
A 
Again, I -- as a typical matter, we -- I did not 
10 
get involved with these, but let me -- let me also say that 
11 
this wasn't a federal prosecution in the first place. And 
12 
so, this whole thing is sui generis to some extent. 
13 
Q 
/t is, but the -- but the grant of immunity is 
14 
real, right? 
15 
A 
I understand where you're coming from. 
16 
Q 
All right. If you had focused on that provision, 
17 
would you have insisted it come out? 
18 
A 
One question I would have had is, if we're 
19 
naming -- as I sit here and sort of focus as we are now, but 
20 
this is with the benefit of hindsight and criticism --
21 
Q 
MM-hmm. 
22 
A 
-- if there are specific folks, why do we have any 
23 
potential language? Because that seems quite broad. 
24 
Q 
It's -- it's without limitation as to people as 
25 
long as they're coconspirators, right? 
EFTA00009105

Page 290 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
A 
But -- and so what is -- what is the need for that? 
Q 
Okay. 
A 
And I would --
Q 
i see. 
A 
And so, if we had this kind of discussion, I would 
6 
be sending 
an e-mail saying, what's the need for this? 
7 
What's up? 
8 
Q 
But to be clear, as we sit here today, you have no 
9 
recollection of having noticed that? 
10 
A 
I -- I don't have a recollection of -- if I read 
11 
over it, my assumption would have been that 
and 
12 
thought this through and sort of addressed it for a reason. 
13 
Q 
All right, and if --
14 
BY 
15 
Q 
And did you have any -- anyone ever come to you 
16 
with the evidentiary issues and say, we need to track this 
17 
down before we give such a blanket immunity? 
18 
A 
I don't recall any conversation around 
19 
coconspirators. 
20 
BY 
21 
Q 
This is where there is a mention of computer 
22 
equipment. There is a provision later in that -- in that 
23 
same paragraph that provides that, "The federal grand jury 
24 
investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal 
25 
grand jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and 
EFTA00009106

Page 291 
1 
until the defendant," --
2 
A 
Right. 
3 
Q 
-- "violates any term of this agreement. The 
4 
defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to 
5 
intervene and quash certain grand jury subpoenas. Both 
6 
parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically 
7 
evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury 
8 
subpoenas that have been issued, and including certain 
9 
computer equipment in violate until all of the terms of the 
10 
agreement have been satisfied." Do you -- do you -- do you 
11 
view that this agreement to suspect the -- at least certain 
12 
aspects of the federal investigation to have been an 
13 
appropriate concession? 
14 
A 
You know, again, my -- my focus was on certain 
15 
points. I would have assumed reading this that this was 
16 
thought through. 
17 
Q 
Okay. 
18 
A 
And that -- and that people had. 
19 
Q 
Had -- had --
20 
A 
Had thought it through, you. 
21 
Q 
All right. Okay. There is what's been criticized 
22 
as a confidentiality provision. 
23 
A 
Yes. 
24 
Q 
Right? And that's on that same page, page five, 
25 
paragraph -- numbered paragraph 13, which provides that, "The 
EFTA00009107

Page 292 
1 
parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part 
2 
of any public record." 
3 
And then there is an exception for FOIA or 
4 
compulsory process from a court, in which the government will 
5 
provide notice to Epstein. That seems to be limited to the 
6 
placing of this document on the public record, right? As 
7 
opposed to sharing it, or disclosing it for whatever purpose 
8 
to individuals. Did -- is that -- is that a distinction that 
9 
makes sense? 
10 
A 
That is -- that is a fair distinction upon reading 
11 
this. I'm not sure that that is a distinction that was -- I 
12 
mean, I'm basing that on my reading currently, and not as a 
13 
recollection. 
14 
Q 
And in fact the parties, both defense counsel and 
15 
even the U.S. Attorney's Office took the position that this 
16 
should never have seen the light of day, even to be disclosed 
17 
to, you know, victims or other parties and interest, except 
18 
for filing it, or except for sharing it on a limited basis 
19 
with law enforcement. I think there were e-mails that talk 
20 
about if we share it, we'll tell them not to disclose it. 
21 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
22 
Q 
Is that sort of overstating what this paragraph 
23 
requires? 
24 
A 
Possibly. I can 
you know, we can get into that, 
25 
and we can discuss it. I would need to understand a little 
EFTA00009108

Page 293 
1 
bit more. I know there was litigation around disclosure on 
2 
this, and I'd need to understand much more the positions that 
3 
we took and the why before commenting on them. 
4 
Q 
There's -- in Exhibit 23, there is a discussion of 
5 
the -- the -- whether the NPA after it has been signed could 
6 
be revealed -- the existence of it could be revealed to the 
7 
police chief, or even the FBI, or the girls, and 
8 
in the middle of page one, or two thirds of the way 
9 
down on page one of Exhibit 23, proposes that if we tell 
10 
anybody about the NPA, you just ask that -- that the 
11 
recipient of that information not disclose it. 
12 
And you then at the top of the page to Lourie and 
13 
who is going to take over 
14 
Lourie's position as the managing AUSA in West Palm Beach, 
15 
should talk with you about it on Wednesday, about the -- you 
16 
should talk about who we tell, and how much. Do you remember 
17 
that conversation, and --
18 
A 
I -- I don't. I know there were several concerns 
19 
about leaks and media, and I imagine that we had a 
20 
conversation quite literally about who to tell, and how much. 
21 
Q 
And did you -- did you feel that this -- at the 
22 
time, as best as you recall, did you feel that that clause 
23 
bound you to not tell anyone? 
24 
A 
So, my recollection of the clause, whether it 
25 
was -- whether it was this clause or whether there was a 
EFTA00009109

Page 294 
1 
discussion, I was 
was aware of this provision, and my 
2 
recollection of this provision is at some point it was raised 
3 
as something that -- that was the subject of negotiation. 
4 
Q 
Okay. 
5 
A 
That the office policy was that we -- that these 
6 
types of deferred prosecution agreement is not made part of 
7 
the public record, and --
8 
Q 
Me-hmm. 
9 
A 
-- therefore that this is not a substantial 
10 
concession --
11 
Q 
Me-hmm. 
12 
A 
-- because in the typical course of business, this 
13 
would not be part of the public record. 
14 
Q 
And that's because it's a non-prosecution as 
15 
opposed -- agreement as opposed to a deferred prosecution 
agreement? 
A 
So, deferred prosecution is not -- to analogize 
18 
from a non-prosecution to a deferred prosecution, these 
19 
are -- you know, if the non-prosecution is not typically part 
20 
of the public record, the deferred prosecution, it makes 
21 
sense that it follows the same. 
22 
And so, it seemed that -- it seemed a concession --
23 
I understand how it was perceived publicly after the fact. 
24 
At the time, it seemed that we weren't giving up much, 
25 
because the typical policy is this is not part of the public 
EFTA00009110

Page 295 
1 
record, and individuals need to file a FOIA. And so by 
2 
saying it's not part of the public record, and individuals 
3 
need to follow FOIA, if that -- if that is viewed as a 
4 
concession, it really isn't. 
5 
Q 
So, how would -- I mean, did -- is it -- is it 
6 
understandable that Epstein would not want this document to 
7 
see the light of day, because it describes the existence and 
8 
nature and scope of the federal investigation --
9 
A 
Right. 
10 
Q 
-- and also his concession to liability under 
11 
22.55? 
12 
A 
It's understandable. It was also my impression at 
13 
the time that it would see the light of day, because --
14 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
15 
A 
-- if victims have 22.55, the ability to get 22.55, 
16 
they obviously have to hear about it from somewhere, and 
17 
given the press interest, eventually this would be FOIA'd. 
18 
And so, from my thinking at the time, rightly or wrongly, 
19 
this is a concession that's basically saying we'll follow 
20 
office policy, and we're likely going to be FOIA'd on this 
21 
anyhow, and it can play out in the FOIA. And so, is this 
22 
really a --
23 
Q 
Yeah. 
24 
A 
-- concession? 
25 
Q 
All right. Another piece of the -- the agreement 
EFTA00009111

Page 296 
1 
is -- is something that is absent, and that's the sort of 
2 
typical language that you find in a -- I think in pretty much 
3 
any federal plea agreement, which is, this agreement 
4 
only -- the defendant understands that this agreement only 
5 
binds the U.S. Attorney's Office for whatever district he or 
6 
she is in, or --
7 
A 
Right. 
8 
Q 
-- you know, and that -- and that truly what you 
9 
would call global dispositions are unusual 
:0 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- for the federal government. 
12 
A 
And I would note, you know, and this is after the 
13 
fact that it does say this district agrees. 
14 
Q 
okay. Understood, and it's also has you as a 
15 
party, not the Department of Justice. 
16 
A 
Right. 
17 
Q 
But it does omit that standard language, and do you 
18 
know whether that was done sort of by mistake, or 
19 
consciously? 
20 
A 
I -- I have no -- I can't speak to that. 
21 
Q 
All right. another piece is phrasing that you 
22 
injected at the -- when you addressed the first -- where it 
23 
was -- it was toward the end. Where --
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- you talked about injecting the best efforts 
EFTA00009112

Page 297 
1 
language. 
2 
A 
Yes. 
3 
Q 
Okay. Does it -- what -- what's -- I believe you 
4 
made clear why you did that. That is, to avoid the 
5 
appearance of having the federal government be dictating 
6 
anything, but why rely on best efforts, and to what extent is 
7 
that even enforceable? 
8 
A 
So, first, let me -- let me say it was not to avoid 
9 
the appearance. It was to avoid the actual legal discovery 
10 
dictating, but -- so, Epstein understands that he has no 
11 
authority to require -- that -- to undertake discussions and 
12 
to use -- so, as I recall, if he did not plead, then there 
13 
was no agreement. 
14 
Q 
No, no, no. This -- I'm sorry. 
15 
A 
Yes. 
16 
Q 
I don't mean to -- it appears in paragraph --
17 
numbered paragraph --
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
-- 11, Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter 
20 
his guilty plea and be sentenced no later than the --
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
Q 
-- set date, and then in the first paragraph after 
23 
numbered clause 11, he will use his best efforts to ensure 
24 
compliance with certain procedures, and best efforts to 
25 
convince the judge of the Florida court to accept his binding 
EFTA00009113

Page 298 
1 
recommendation. So, best efforts kind of became a sticking 
2 
point in enforcement, didn't it? Because what does it mean? 
F 
3 
What does best efforts mean? 
4 
A 
So, I think it's fair to say that one of the issues 
5 
that came up after this was entered into was the U.S. 
6 
Attorney's Office, at least from my perspective, was in a 
7 
little bit of a bind because we had agreed to this, yet he 
8 
wasn't turning himself in. And so, how do we deal with that? 
9 
And so, that's not a phrase that I focused on at the time. I 
10 
understand your point. 
11 
Q 
All right. I'm going to move on from those. Is 
12 
there anything else on those NPA clauses? 
13 
A 
And finally, let me -- let me just say you didn't 
14 
ask, we had incredibly experienced attorneys in the office. 
15 
I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that this language had been 
16 
thought through and vetted, and you know, sitting here 12 
17 
years later, I understand the issues that have arisen from 
18 
it, but at the time, these were not issues that were focused 
19 
on. 
20 
Q 
to your knowledge, who was involved in the 
21 
drafting, other than 
on your side --
22 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
-- and 
Lourie, and you, to some extent? 
24 
A 
So, I can't say 12 years after the fact, but again, 
25 
Lourie, very experienced head of the Palm Beach Office 
EFTA00009114

Page 299 
1 
has prosecuted any number of cases. 
2 
Q 
In -- again, just to keep --
3 
A 
Right. 
4 
Q 
-- perspective and context, the final week that 
5 
this was being negotiated, 
Lourie was in Washington, and 
6 
bouncing back and forth on the weekends, because he was in 
7 
transition to the front office here in the criminal division 
8 
in this building. That's a factor in terms of being able to 
9 
give attention to some details. Would you agree with that? 
10 
It could be a factor? 
11 
A 
So, it could be a factor. On the other hand, I'd 
12 
say that 
wasn't leaving the department. He is 
13 
professional. He knows his stuff, and you would expect a 
14 
professional -- if they're reviewing a document, whether 
15 
they're on vacation, whether they're looking to move from one 
16 
part of the department to another, that you would expect them 
17 
to review it, you know, fulfilling their -- their 
18 
responsibility to sort of focus in and make sure that -- that 
19 
it's -- that it encompasses what it should. And that's not a 
20 
criticism of 
. That -- that's saying that, well, that 
21 
might be a factor. That doesn't lessen from my perspective 
22 
reliance on his expertise. 
23 
Q 
NM-hmm. Understood. After the NPA was signed --
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- and 
came back --
EFTA00009115

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: right. DO : 0 O

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: All right. :

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : I

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : BY

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: BY

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: BY

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Did you thi BY

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : hink -- did

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : think --

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: i ....

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : : .

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: IL was BY But you don

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 : you don't I

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: even whe

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: BY Or even w

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ITPORT that : even whether it W

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : I understand

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: And I under

Size: 50 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: rightly or BY

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: or wron :

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: articulated an

Size: 19 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: that arti by

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ? certainly

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that coxta

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : So, that ce

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: so -- : d so --

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: And so -- BY And so --

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: time, even if

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: time, ev

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: wou even if th

Size: 70 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : T THE WITNESS: I c

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WI

Size: 69 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: came back were su : you remember the

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: came o BY Do you re

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: cam going to

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: at was going

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: right. The ich what was g

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: You don't reca : J J :

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: re, :

Size: 82 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Just : Y K THE WITNESS: Yea

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Yea BY : So, before we --

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: office at 6 ba 7 never hav

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: imary concern of or to say that I fo

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: of r to sav +

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: yours versus a ? ocused more on t

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: or focused m

Size: 81 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: Yes. Yeah. I think BY : So, you mentioned vi

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: -- so, those hat and not --

Size: 76 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: by . Yeah.

Size: 76 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat sub July.

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: This doc 1 in 2 mail. A

Size: 70 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: SO : Let me --

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: plea, sort of m on of July, and th

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 'Reid by he 31st of Ju

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: was urpose of

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Q Je 6 the meeti

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Okay. So, on San oman, Menchel, Lo

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the purpose as offer. An

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and the pur and plea offer

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 2 10 Oka 3 dra 4 counteroffer

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ounteroffer is re rom San etail, because as

Size: 49 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and the date i

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1a, this, and th

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Q -- landi aks let 2, Thursday

Size: 75 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: It has the same la is 1

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: same lang las

Size: 76 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: was tially the driver of

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: th

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: San

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ink her there

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: was awar mig cap under

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I was aw le, E cap und

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: wa in - differ

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Ms.

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: let iately --

Size: 76 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ter I 1 almost immediately -

Size: 80 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ? at the time. I

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: So, working

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: -hmm. All right, E working with him

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: right, a was with him o

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hington. ink ha ton to be

Size: 82 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: as sly

Size: 69 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to — wh

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: an, MacMillan?

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: OJUT an Milana

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: llection, as ght sented

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 2 best as I C 3 was 4 several arg

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 34. : Exhibit

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 34 : ou Exhib

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: GONZALEZ: ank you. Exh

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. GONZAL BY Thank you.

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: there is a let : sorry, when y

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: And there -- BY I'm sorry,

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ugh you had :

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Even though you BY

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: days, in ed, rney's

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and office to sit

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: of the res and Lou sit down and

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and out an

Size: 30 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: nat and and work ou

Size: 30 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the error use got

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: we discussed

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: fore it was b ed, as we dis

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: was scussed bef

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I - I don't. ink say Right.

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ight. Any : quick

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : 11v quick

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: All right. BY Really quic

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: was coming

Size: 11 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Ms. was com

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: coming

Size: 82 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that's fair to her BY : You could have said

Size: 63 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: All right. BY : Do you think she

Size: 83 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: : T THE WITNESS But :

Size: 64 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: erent -- a differe BY : So in your mind, 1 I

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: of that 24 BY Well, you

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I vou also ae

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1, which I ma ich her hands on

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I may or may n inf ands on important

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: BY H : ou his UT --

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: BY

Size: 81 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : He's not BY : All right. She did

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: he question? hat was to get this

Size: 82 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: you just said? BY : Were you aware of al

Size: 57 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: sounds like you 1 wordline sold HOU -

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 2 it sounds I d-uou aux a

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 11S that i Lou is --

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: mails that was L there is -

Size: 58 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I you do a rewrite

Size: 33 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1, and you do wor

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: rom : rewrite from

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 17 series i was eventually

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat but event

Size: 49 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: CO make September

Size: 13 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: rse of Septe

Size: 43 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: or starring so Louri

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: tarfing clea is Lourie ha

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: so Lou ing of the N

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: NPA, the fin to wit

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: inal version ith ri

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and pu -mail in 18b

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the course of from on explains th

Size: 82 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: losing your voice. : I MR. TODD: You CC

Size: 82 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. TODD: You CO : A THE WITNESS All

Size: 81 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS All : A MR. TODD: Four IT

Size: 62 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. TODD: Fou : C (Off the recor

Size: 82 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: (Off the record.) BY : Back on the record.

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: record. Looking reg ime when she's go

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the record. to a time whe

Size: 68 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: now is

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat Lou words, he 1

Size: 76 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: for : -

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A is

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: is , meaning

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ich from I

Size: 18 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: is on page ing he throes O

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: om me the -- in

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 2 two, looking 3 an 4 negotiating t

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: in the -- in t is observations t

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: is in the A. observa

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the NPA. ith obs inds of nonsens

Size: 69 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: but ply tell him,

Size: 89 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: says to you in thi tha intend to move for

Size: 18 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: change thin ing agr Tell hi

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: ings? agr

Size: 17 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: a

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: : if hat ing

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: hat ing to work it

Size: 83 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: and two are what , is , or what you'

Size: 25 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: three somet ing ?T

Size: 18 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: ell 9 of

Size: 24 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: ing . him,

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: Okay. So, ou, te So :

Size: 25 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: number two ing to

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: op it, or we ow, sho Q Okay

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: :

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: but was 5

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : hat -- is that -

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that -- i

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: BY Is that --

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: What woul 1 . H 2 A

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: lly difficul . 'no you to say

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : ed. like vo

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: right. : semed like,

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: All right. BY It seemed 1

Size: 82 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: BY : What's that point?

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: sure that this : : Y BY

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: voch Lef

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: BY Oh yeah, b

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : You skipp : eah, before that

Size: 26 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 9e is an exh and Lou -- the fe

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat wou ook, if -- I

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : you ever ha

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: you eve

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Okay. AI BY Did you e

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: pesoddo s 47T

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 2 to your

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: abo to yourself?

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: he day, my up , 477 -I - I y

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: rom tha the plea agre

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: rtable moving BY The NPA?

Size: 51 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: moving forward : -----

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: rom points

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat at vario bec his. If at

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: this. hat

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: and

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: All right. BY Do you reme

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : remember -

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : ou

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: BY So, does th

Size: 57 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: does this captu : does that --

Size: 37 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : uine -- ------

Size: 24 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: BY And you're

Size: 82 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 can't -- I can't S BY : In the final NPA on

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 4 and my a 5 and 6 was -- in

Size: 30 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: assumption, and WOU - was appropr

Size: 90 x 24 pixels

Surrounding text: are all

Size: 289 x 28 pixels

Surrounding text: 2 Q All right, and the named individuals, 3 are 4 individuals who were described in the pros memo a

Size: 69 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: nting of this case le, : -

Size: 77 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: : ar,

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: do you hay ing Lou this case a:

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: And so, i ing an up?

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: of -- if hat and it for a

Size: 30 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: if I read and a reason.

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: right, and : did you hay

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: All right, BY And did vo

Size: 69 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ators. BY : This is where ther

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : ere there

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: evealed to th and hirds of the

Size: 58 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: police chief, in down on page

Size: 57 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: 3 and Lourie's posi

Size: 95 x 13 pixels

Surrounding text: And you then at the to and wh osition as the managin

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: rie and ver Beach,

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: AUT SPM OUM on

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: :

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: knowledge, han

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and Lou I can't say

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A Lou

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and contex ed, Lou on the week

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: So, it was ional. He

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: So, i hat E ssional.

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat it encom of . T factor. T

Size: 43 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: cam