10

11

12

15

16

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

Page 300

A Yeah.

Q == right about that same time, he quite quickly
identified a potential problem, and that was the commitment
for the -- or, the agreement that the U.S. Attorney's Office
would identify the representative for the victims. Deo you
recall him raising that?

A I doen't recall him raising that as an 1ssue, but I
know it was an issue,

Q All right. It was an issue, and it was one that he
raised as soon as he came back. So, there was an effort,

which he conducted then in HE HIBHIEE absence to craft

an NPA addendum to address that issus.

Do you -- are you -- are you aware that | TTT

IEE :cceived a copy of the NPA in November when Ken

Starr wrote a letter to HIE asking her to review the |
22.55 portion of it? Do you -- do you remember that issue?

A I remember that the issue was appealed to CEOS.

Q Okay. Well, it was -- it was appealed initially by
letter to LL TTR raising an issue that was new to ==
that had not been raised with you, and that is what led to

your letter to Ken Starr on December 4.

I I will accept the timeline.

Q Okay.

12) It's difficult without all the documents =--
Q Sure.

EFTA00009116



ee

Page 301
1 B -= but yes.

2 Q And at the time that NEN nn saw the NPA,
3 he sent a message to IN about the -- about his view
4 of the NPA, and you didn't see it, but I Just wanted to name
=] some problems that he identified with the disposition, and

6 get your reaction --

7 A Mm-hmm.

8 Q == to it. So, first, he says I'm not thrilled

9 about the agreement, but he acknowledges that's out of his
10 hands. He says in terms of the charging and sentencing
provisions, he's getting -- Epstein is getting a much better
12 deal than the average defendant, with the exception of
13 defendants who have done physical harm to their victims or
14 abused very young children, we haven't seen more egregious

15 conduct, because of its serial nature. The area we need to

le be most careful about relates to the victims,

17

The U.S. should seek to ensure that the plea, which
18 is not giving him serious jail time, provides the best means
19 possible to address the harm he caused to the victims. That
20 generally means restitution and/or therapy. While the

21 agreement provides facility for the victims, the relevant

22 terms still seem pretty advantageous for the defendant, and

23 not all that helpful to the victims,

24 They get an attorney who will be paid by the

25

defendant, which involves at least some conflict of interest,

EFTA00009117



oh

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

19

20

21

22

a3

24

25

EE

ee

Page 302

or they could hire their own attorneys on a contingency
basis, and they get waivers from the defendant when his plea
would facilitate their civil cases in any event. Then, they
still have to sue him to get anything.

Most times with wealthy defendants, we make them
agree to a restitution fund, and then still provide that the
victims can sue the defendant independently if they choose.
We always make them clearly admit their guilt, no nolc pleas.

This is incredibly important to the victims. I
would have taken the guy to trial unless the victims were

clearly against it, and I don't think most of them are here.

He then says to TT ]  } who by this time is working

for =--
A Mm-hmm.
°c -- INNES
2 Right.

Q So, that's the context in which he's addressing it.

EE EE -ccifies that, "SEE couldn't and

shouldn't address the agreement." So, that -- so that the
issue that was then before HEIN put there by Ken
Starr, was the -- whether this 22.55 scheme or scenario set

out in the NPA was appropriate. It appears that she then
sent that back to you to address.

F:) Right.

Q But as far as HiNBEEN commentary on the NPA,

EFTA00009118


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

— eee |

Page 303
if you had been aware of this perspective at the time you

were -- that you and your pecple were fashioning the NPA,
would that have been helpful to you in =-- in deciding out te
proceed?

A So, may I?

Q Yes.

2} Okay. I assume you've read the whole thing, but
let me just take a --

Q I have.

I} And so, a few comments. First, let me say, he was
part of the September meeting.

2 Mm~-hmm .

A And =-- and to my recollection, these
perspectives -- so, so, at least the outlines of the
agreement were -- were disclosed at that meeting, and I don't

recall this type of communication at that time,

Q Okay.

A I also recall that there was a lot of back and
forth around this restitution fund concept, and our
perspective was that the restitution fund puts the victim at
a disadvantage --

Q Mm -hmm ,

A == because -- let me —- let me try to recreate. I
don't recall the details, but I recall that there was a

perspective that the restitution fund --

EFTA00009119


13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

= ———————,

Page 304

Q Mm~-hmm .

2h -=- put the victims as a disadvantage --

Q Mm-hmm .

B == and there is some reference to --

Q It's the --

B Was it an Alaska case?

Q It's called the [Jj case.

vE. EE
THE WITNESS I'm sorry?
THE WITNESS [EE
THE WITNESS (JR:
BY vs. HE:

Q Yeah.

A And so to the extent that there were better ways of
crafting this, that certainly would have been -- been highly
relevant, because to my recollection, we were not wed to any
particular way of crafting it,

The =- the intent of the 22.55 was to come as close |
as possible to putting the wictims in the -- in the position
they would have been had he been tried and convicted
federally. And so, the answer to your question is yes.

Q Is yes, that would have --

:\ Would have been helpful.

EFTA00009120


13

14

15

le

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page 305
Q Okay. As you set about addressing the 22.55, you

consulted with | SE Dc you recall that?

A I == I recall consultations. I don't recall that
it was specifically with JJ} but --

Q Did you know her?

I Yes.

Q Okay, and do you recall the nature of your
interaction with her?
2) I --— I don't. I know from contemporary review of

the record, that there is an e-mail from her.

Q It's 41a.

A dla.

Q And what I -- what I want to ask is, is simply, 4la
is -- is an e-mail in which you ask =-- you note to IH

A Right.

Q == one of her deputies, and she oversaw CEOS. She,

BEE rcnticned to you that Bl vas locking at

this, which is the --

23 22.55.

Q -=- 22.55, she contacts her counterpart in the civil

division, [lll HHI 2nd there's an e-mail from him,

which is the second page of this exhibit, which he copies you

on. So, my question is, is this the extent of your

interaction with [|] LT on this issue?

EFTA00009121


EEE

Page 306
1 A I == 12 years =--
2 Q Okay.
3 FY -- after the fact, I don't remember.
4 Q Okay. All right. The -- in Exhibit 35, there is a
5 letter from Jay Lefkowitz in which == I'm sorry, it's an e-
6 mail from Jay Lefkowitz.
7 2) Exhibit?

8 Q Exhibit 35 to you, and this is substantially later,
8 but it has a sentence that -- or a phrase that we'd like to
10 ask you about, and -- all right, it's highlighted at the top.
11 It says, back in the beginning of -- back at the beginning of

12 January, when we both agreed that there were significant

13 irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement, you

14 called a time out. Is that accurate? Did you and he agree

15 that --

16 A No.

17 Q -- there were significant irregularities?

18 B No.

19 Q Okay.

20 RB And 1f I could, there are -- there are several

21 instances where not just, to me, but to other people as well,

22 Jay recharacterizes conversations.

23 Q Recharacterizes them inaccurately?

24 2) Inaccurately.

25 Q Or misleadingly?

0]

ee

EFTA00009122


13

14

13

le

17

18

13

20

21

22

23

24

25

A Or misleadingly.

Q All right.

p= What I recall agreeing to at some point is there
was an appeal to the DAG, or there was an appeal in place,
and I basically said -- I think there was a letter that I

sent, saying if you want to appeal, go ahead. We're not

concerned about this.

Q Mm-hmm .
hy But that doesn't mean that I agree that there were
irregularities --

Q All right.

EB == or that there was a time out, that's -- I'm part
of a department. I'm part of a hierarchy. If someone wants
to overrule me, that's okay by me.

Q All right. So, the NPA addendum was worked out,
and the defense team continued its sort of multi-pronged
assault. In the middle of the negotiations between [JIE
and Lefkowitz about the NPA addendum, that's when you had the
much commented on breakfast --

A Correct.

Q == on October 12, and you have stated publicly that
at == perfectly accurately that the NPA was signed, and that
was a done deal. And so, that -- that this was not tied in

any way to any effort to influence the terms of the NPA,

fair?

EFTA00009123


10

11

12

13

14

15

le

17

1B

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

EE eee ———

A

negotiated it over breakfast. It was signed, and that's

really important.

Q
issues --

A

Q
two, this
breakfast
following

about the

dictate a

that whan

there were issues still open that were the subject of

discussions between the defense and the U.S. Attorney's

Office.

was a meeting of convenience in a public place, in a location

whera you

optically, do you understand the public concern that this was

sort of a
A

This, you

I actually very intentionally waited, and tried not to have

Page 308

Fair, because the way this was reported was that I

Of course. There were, however, a number of open

Yes,

== right? And in Exhibit 28, Jay Lefkowitz on page
is an e-mail to you, acknowledges your -- your

on Friday. This is dated Octcber 18, and -- and

== following up on -- your conversation with him

date for Epstein's plea.
So, he notes that, "You said you didn't want to
schedule to the state." So, all I want to note is

you had the breakfast, there was -- there was --

And -- and so, I guess my question is, while that

had business later that day, a speech, I believe,

one on one negotiation on pending issues?

50, I == I understand how there can be CONCern.

know, it is -- it was not unusual -- in this case,

EFTA00009124


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

EE SSS aE —

Page 309

one on one meetings, but there are other instances where I

might from time to time have one on one conversations with
the opposing counsel,

I don't remember the breakfast. I can speculate
that one of the issues that was informing this was somewhere
around this time, and I can't say with certainty that this
was what it was, but somewhere around this time, there arose
allegations that [Jl] had directed the designation to her
boyfriend's partner, or something along those lines.

Q A former -- I believe it was a former law school

classmate of her former -- of her then boyfriend.

B I don't == yeah, and so I don't remember what the
details --

Q Okay.

2) -= were, but I know that that was a topic that he

wanted to raise --
Q Mm=-hmm.
A -- with me.

Q Did he at that breakfast?

A I honestly -- I don't recall the breakfast.
Q Okay.
A You asked me about one characterization of what I

said in the record, you know, of that breakfast. I think I

responded --

Q Mm~-hmm .

EFTA00009125



Page 310

1 A == through, or my counsel responded, and they're
2 pointing out that I seem fairly perturbed at how he
3 inaccurately characterized something that I said. And 50, we

q don't need to revisit that, but =--
5 Q Uh-uh. All right. If you look at Exhibit 27,

6 another sort of peint, just to kind of --

7 A All right.

5 ME. EN: could we —- before we --

8 vs. 1: ves:

10 VE. I: -- leave —- are we leaving the
11 breakfast meeting?

12 vs. [I : vo. This is —-

13 THE WITNESS Okay.

14 MS. EEE: -- this is directly related.
15 ME. I: okay.

16 BY vs. GEGEN:

17 Q And that is, Exhibit 27 is the second e-mail down,

18 is from [ll HEM to Jay Lefkowitz. The date is October

19 12, so that's the same day as your breakfast.

20 A Right.

21 Q And the date of it is not == I'm sorry, the time is

9:48 a.m. Your breakfast was at 7:00. So, this would have

been pretty shortly after your breakfast, and TT] writes

to Jay Lefkowitz with a copy to you and HE HEEEN

stating that he just got off the phone with you, that is,

EFTA00009126



ee ——,

Page 311
1 HE just got off the phone with you, and then he furnishes

2 a revised paragraph one, which suggests -- I mean, I infer
3 from that that shortly after the breakfast, you had a phone
4 conversation with [Jl IH about a revision to this

5] paragraph, and that =-- that that was likely something that

6 you talked to him about. Again, I'm not --

7 A Right.

8 Q == suggesting that this --

9 A Again, I -- I don't -- I don't recall the

10 breakfast, so I can't say one way or the other. I --1I

11 take -- I take your point. I don't recall seeing this.

12 Q All right. Well, it was --

13 A But --

14 Q == You were copied on it. Okay. All right. 3

15 you wanted to --

16 sy ME. [EN

17 Q I Just wanted to point to Exhibit 30.

18 A Can -- can we back up a second?

19 vs. NEE: su:--.

20 THE WITNESS | || § I'm not sure whether your

21 concerns are —- so, I would -- I would only raise the

22 question where -- or, the point where, based on this, and I

23 don't recall, so I can't speak, but [|] is saying, Jay

24 suggests revision has been rejected. Here is our latest,

25 HE.

Ee EE —

EFTA00009127



EE —e
Page 312

And so, to -- there are multiple ways to read this.
2 One is that this was raised. Another is that we're rejecting
3 something that Jay had proposed, and --

4 Ms. EE: i-th.

5 THE WITNESS -- because I was meeting with Jay, I

6 asked that [J not reject it until after I met with him, and
7 I == I'm speculating, because I don't recall the topic, but

8 it does appear that it says, Jay suggested revision has been

g rejected. Here is our latest.

10 vs. HEE: 1) right. Thank you. [HE

11 gv ME. [EE :

12 Q Can we just go to Exhibit 30 quickly? There's some
13 highlighted language. This is a letter from Lefkowitz to you

14 on October 23rd, 2007, where he recounts, again, the things

15 that happened, or his version of the October 12th breakfast

16 meeting.

17 A Yes.

18 Q Are you at that =--

19 Fal Yes.

20 Q == at that point right there, Exhibit 307

21 Fa) Yeah, I'm there.

22 Q Okay. So, in the highlighted language, if you

23 could just take a lock at that quickly?

24 2) Yes.

23 Q So, he is recounting that you had assured him that

ee

EFTA00009128



10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 313

EVENING SESSION

6:00 P.M.

the office would not intervene with the state's attorney's
office, and -- or contact the civil claimants, or intervene
regarding the sentence that Epstein receives pursuant to a

Plea agreement.

A Yeah.

Q So, is he correct in his recounting that?
2) Can you -- can you find that for me?

Q Yeah.

A So, again, I don't have an independent

recollection. Oh, ne, I'm looking --

Ms. I: oh, vou have it.

THE WITNESS -- for something -- I don't have an
independent recollection of that breakfast, but in the
contemporaneous e-mails and the contemporaneous record, there
is correspondence between -- between [[]] and I, and you all
asked for this, and I -- I spoke with my counsel, who then
responded, and there's an e-mail exchange where there's an
October 20 -- this was an October 23rd e-mail -- October 23rd
letter.

And then there is a response that's drafted on
October 23th. I don't know if we can find that. From [111]

to Jay that specifically addresses the point, and then I

respond -- [ll runs that by me, and I respond -- I edit the

EFTA00009129



———m ms _ mm

Page 314
1 letter, and I move it -- I sort of emphasize -- like, I make
2 it firmer, and my edit says our office cannot and will net

3 agree te this, and then my comment to HF is, what do you

4 think of this rewrite? Is it too strong?

5 BY ME. EE

6 Q What day was that?
i B That was two days after this. I don't know if we
8 can find that in the -- in the chronological record. That

9 was October 25th. Let's just take a minute. Is that what

10 you have?

11 MR. Jl}: Sorry, apparently my ability to separate

12 paper has failed.

13 THE WITNESS Okay. So, this is --

14 ME. EE Oh, I see.

15 THE WITNESS So --

16 ME. J: corrv. go ahead,

17 THE WITNESS So, October 25th, I'm writing te CE

18 what do you think of this rewrite? Is it too strong? And it
19 says, dear Jay, I'd like to take this opportunity to document
20 cur conversation of October 24th which clarified some of the

21 representations in your October 23rd letter,

22 I write in particular because you indicated that

23 your intent in writing the letter was to memorialize our

24 conversations. Our agreement is limited to blank, blank,

25 blank, dot, dot, dot.

EFTA00009130



Page 315

I specifically want to clarify one of the items

2 that I believe was inaccurate in the October 23rd letter.

3 Your office claims that this office would not intervene with
4 the state attorney's office regarding this matter, or contact
5 any of the individuals, potential witnesses, or potential

3 civil claimants, and their respective counsel in this matter,
7 and neither your office nor the FBI would intervene regarding
B the sentence Mr. Epstein received.

9 I'm quoting Jay's letter. As we discussed and
10 hopefully clarified, and as the U.S. Attorney previously
11 explained in an earlier conference call, such promises equate

12 to the imposition of a gag order. OQur office cannot and will

13 not agree to this. It is the intent of this office to treat
14 this matter like any other case.
15 Thus, as is typical, we do not desire or intend te

16 "intervene" the state attorney's office. The non=prosecution

17 agreement provides sufficient mechanisms to achieve the goals
18 of the federal investigation. You should understand,

19 however, that there are some communications that are typical
20 in these matters.

21 And so, I go on, and so my point is this was

22 pretty -- based on -- if you reviewed my -- my e-mails and

23 language, for me to write something up saying, what do you

24 think of this rewrite, is it too strong?

25 Q Mm~hmm .

EFTA00009131


Ee

Page 316
1 A And to edit J language to, our office cannot

2 and will not agree to this, is not my agreeing with this

3 characterization, but my polite way of saying, this ain't

4 what I said.

5 Q Mm-hmm .

6 A Let me be clear.

7 Q And then --

8 A Again, no independent recollection. This is just

9 based on inferring from the contemporaneous e-mails.

10 Q Okay.
11 BY Ms. HEE :
12 Q What I would like to do is ask a couple of

13 questions in a couple of areas about the main justice review.
14 A Okay.

15 Q Then take a short break, and then HE has some

1&6 questions that are CVRA related, and then we have some

17 summary questions.

18 A Okay.
19 Q Is that all right?
20 A Can I -- before you -- you move on, can I address

21 something that [lll was getting at, but it's getting late,

22 so I'm going to circle back to -- to --
23 Q Please.
24 A -— something that I thought you would bring up.

25 Ms. |: sure.

eee

EFTA00009132



10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1%

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 317
THE WITNESS Seo, I think something to talk about

is, pre-agreement and post-agreement, I think are different,
and one concern that I had, and I certainly shared with --
with Mr. |B vas once it was signed -- so, we had the
initial issues with the case.

Once the agreement was signed, we now have an
overlying issue of, is there =-- is the agreement binding? To
what extent it's binding. And so, you == your question was,
why this level of process after the agreement was signed, and
I said I think you'll get back to that. And I think to some
extent, there are two parts to that.

One is, the office shouldn't be afraid of review.
We're part of the Department of Justice, and review, whether
it by main justice or now you all, is -- is part of the
process.

And so, to the extent that they want to appeal to
main, it would be unseemly to sort of say, don't review us,
and I doen't think it would help reviewing this, but the
second part of it is if we were to walk away from the
agreement, that not only are we litigating the underlying
criminal case, but we're litigating a civil/eriminal issue on
top of that, which is, did the agreement bind? And that's
something that did inform the exhausting amount of process

that they -- that they received, which didn't change any of

the outcome.

EFTA00009133



10
11
12
13
14
15
16
|
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

BE EEE aa ——

EE —

Page 318
BY vs. [EEE :
Q Didn't bind what?
Fay So, 1f we were to walk away, were -- could we still
prosecute?
Q I see.
A Right? Because having signed that, we were now

parties to an agreement, and that would overlay any sort of
prosecuticn. And so, you had these collateral issues coming.
BY Ms. HN:

Q Just to make sure we're clear, are you saying that
there is -- there would have been difficulty in declaring a
breach so that you could then indict?

2) Correct, and so we'd have to litigate over a
breach, because as much as they had collateral challenges,
they are very careful in saying, this is not a breach, we
would just like review.

And so, one of the issues that overlaid the post --
the October going forward time peried is on top of this, do
we now want litigation over a breach? And so, I think that

is why the post-agreement time period is different than the

pre—agreement --

us. |: oho.

THE WITNESS -- time period.

av ws. ENE

Q But was part of that problem the result of the

EFTA00009134


Page 319
1 change from, here is the date that you must comply, te, you

2 must use best efforts to comply?

3 A Possibly. I would -- whether it was that, or

4 others, or other parts of the agreement, we can talk about,
5 but how -- once the agreement was signed, and they do not --
6 and they start pushing the date, there becomes a legal issue
7 over, are they really in breach or not?

8 And I'm not -- I understand your perspective. I'm

9 Just saying, you know, earlier I said that there was a

10 difference. You asked about the process, and I said from my
11 perspective, there's a difference between the pre-agreement
12 and the post-agreement time period.

13 And much of that difference is informed by, if we
14 declare a unilateral breach, how does this hold up in court?
15 Because now there's a signed agreement that the United States
lé 13 a party to.
17 Q And are you saying that part of the reason, or
18 maybe all of the reason that you continued to give
19 accommodations and process and delay was because of the

20 concern that you couldn't actually win a breach argument?

21 A I think that was a consideration. Another part of
22 the considerations are if someone -- if a party wants to
23 take -- I mean, main justice gave a lot of process. It
24 wasn't -- it wasn't, you know, it wasn't just to -- to [JJ
25 but it was up to the -- it was just up to the assistant

EFTA00009135


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Page 320

attorney general for criminal division, to be polite, but it
was up to the DAG.

And so, if main justice is going to give this
degree of process, we should -- we should be in the position
of saying go forward, as opposed to, I don't think it looks

positive for the office to be viewed as fearing department

review.

Q But were you giving the impression to the
Department of Justice that you were the one who wanted this
review so that they felt like, well, it's not just these
defense attorneys who we can blow off, it is an United States
Attorney who is asking for this review, and so therefore wae
need to give the courtesy of reviewing this?

A I don't think I asked for it as opposed to saying,
if you would -- so, from the very beginning, they said that
they're going to take this to the Deputy Attorney General and
Attorney General.

And I said, if you want to, fine. They just
finally did, but that was not -- that was not —— I think they
raised that as early as August or September. And 50, I'm not
surprised that it ended up there. I also thought it was
important to not be in the position of fearing review. I
think if you look at the contemporaneous record, there's an

effort on our part to expedite the review.

By ws. [IEEE

EFTA00009136

|


1 Q But there's a difference between, have at it, go,
2 do what you want, up at main, and getting that --
3 A Right.
4 Q == that non-opposition, and actually sending a
5 signal te -- in the -- in the case of the criminal division,
& the assistant attorney general, in the case of the DAG's
7 office, Mark Filip or his assignee, that you supported their
8 review, that the -- this appeal process. You could have
9 said, lock, we're going to go ahead and get on with our
10 business.
11 If they want to -- if -- you could have not so much
12 opposed a review, but not seconded their request for -- the
13 defense request for reviews, or not in fact invited the
14 reviews.
15 Fa) So, I'd be curious as to the timeline. I would
16 take issue with, I invited the reviews, and TI guestion
17 whether, did they initiate the reviews on their own, and then
18 I said have at it, or did I -- based on -- I mean, you've got
19 more of a record than I do, or did I invite == I don't -- I
20 would say I did not invite the reviews.
21 Q Well, let me -- bad terminology, perhaps. Let me
22 ask you this. If -- would've -- did you convey to the
23 criminal division that you wanted them to review this matter,
24 as requested by the defense attorneys?
25 B So, from my perspective, I'm thinking back 12 --
a I — |

Page 321

EFTA00009137

ee —



10

11

12

15

16

17

18

18

20

21

23

24

25

Page 322

Q Mm~-hmm .

Fil == 12 years now. The very reason that we invited
Bl to come down to Miami back in August was a sense that it
would end up up here. And so, if it's going to end up up
here, let's bring [Jj down.

Let's make him part of the initial meeting. You
know, if there are concerns, let's raise these. Let's
address them. Let's get them out so that we don't end up,
after we go forward with all of this, back in front of |]
and Jl And it's much better to involve main justice
earlier.

And so, I would say I was trying, if anything,
to -- to involve main justice so that we didn't end up where
we were, and it had been my expectation that that October
date would have been met.

The collateral reviews afterwards, the collateral
appeals, obviously did not go as -- as we planned, and -- and
it was my sense, we were going to end up at main justice one
way or another.

Q So, my question is in December, after the December
meeting --

:\ Right.

Q == that you had with defense counsel, and they told
you they were going to go te main justice.

A Correct.

EFTA00009138



un

10

11

12

le

17

18

19

20

21

24

25

Page 323

Q To the criminal division. Did you convey to main

justice criminal division that you wanted them te conduct the
review that defense counsel were seeking?

A So, I don't recall what I may or may not have
conveyed. I think my recollection was, if they want a
review, that's their right. We're not -- as a department,
we're not in the business of telling individuals that they
can't take something to your supervisor, or your superior.
Whether -- whether main justice takes this on or not is

ultimately at their discretion.

Q Would it surprise you to learn that the criminal
division front office understood you to be requesting their
review, the review that was sought by defense counsel?

A Would it surprise me? Perhaps. My -- my -- my
understanding -- recollection is we shouldn't fear it. If
they want it --

Q Mm-hmm .

A -- that's their right. I thought by inviting [|] |
down in the first place that we had at least tried to address

that early on, but I also thought that we might end up there

in the first place.

Q Were you -- were you aware that a decision was made
to grant the decision by your office to grant defense

counsel's requast -- their insistence that [1] LDF]

role in the criminal division review be limited to raview

EFTA00009139



[l=3

11

12

13

14

13

16

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

— —_———,

Page 324

only, and that he not be permitted to -- or that the criminal

divisions -- that the -- I'm sorry, I misspoke. That because

TE BE ac 2lready been involved in essentially

being a prosecutor on the case --

A Right.

Q == that the -- the criminal division and CEOs’ role
vis a vis this review should be review only. That is, they
should be taken off the case as a -- as a partner?

2) So, I sought e-mails to that affect in the record.

I don't have an independent recollection 12 years --

Q You ==
Fa) -= 12 —=
Q Do you think you were involved in that decision?

A To take them off?

Q Yes.

A To my recollection, I wanted them on as a partner,
and I think the contemporaneous --

al -- e-mails from [ij is, can you please come on
board?

Q But that was earlier, before this review process?

A No. No. Even after the -- |

Q All right.
hil -=- review process, I think there are

contemporaneous e-mails where we're saying it's important

EFTA00009140


Page 325

1 that you be part. If we go to trial, it's important that you

2 be part of the trial, Bs I -- as I went through the record,

3 at least I remember --

4 Q Mm = hmm

5 A == an e-mail, perhaps from Jj tc J that I'm

& copied on saying, hey, can you reconsider? It's important

7 that you be part of this.

8 Q Reconsider the review only limitation?

9 A No, no. Reconsider being a part of the trial --

10 Q Oh. All right.

11 A —-= team.
12 Q All right. So, to be clear, do I understand that
13 ¥ou -- correct me, that you don't have a recollection one way

14 or the other whether you requested the criminal division to

15 conduct the review, or could it have happened, or --

16 B Sg =--

17 Q -= what?

18 A -- to the extent I -- again, I'm going back --

19 Q Mm~ hmm

20 n == 12 years. To the extent there is a request to,

21 it would be in the context of, this is going to Washington.

22 We're not fearful of this. Have at it.

23 Q And you would have conveyed that to Washington?

24 Not just to the defense attorneys, is that correct?

:\ I imagine in some way. It's =-=-

EFTA00009141


eee ——
Page 326
1 Q All right.
I 2 BY Ms. HN:
3 Q And just one --
4 2) Yeah.
5 Q -= just one point. This one -- this one was a
6 little bit of an =--
7 A Yeah.
| 8 Q == odd posture, however, because you had a signed
9 agreement. And so, you know, basically a contract between
10 parties --
11 A Right.
12 Q == and particularly on Mr. Epstein's side, a party
13 who was -- who was extremely well represented. So, was there
14 any consideration on your part, instead of saying, hey,

15 everybody's got a right to review, knock yourself out, go up
16 te Washington, as opposed to saying something like, that ship
17 has sailed, guys. You signed this agreement. We're going
18 forward. You don't go forward. You're in breach. End of

15 story?
20 23 So, his counsel are raising serious issues that go
21 to ethics and go to fundamental relationships between
22 soverelgns. Is this 22.55 appropriate as a matter of federal
| 23 policy? Is what we're doing an overreach, you know, is what
29 we're doing contrary to law? Are we extracting -— I'm
25 characterizing. This may or may not =--
 —— EE ee =

EFTA00009142



10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

Page 327
Q Mm-hmm .

n == be accurate. Are we extracting unduly? Are we

using criminal law to extract civil concessions in an
ethically suspect way? Those are serious issues. That isn't
just, is this a good case?

Those are -- those are genuine issues. I happen to
think that, as I recall, that we were in the right or we

wouldn't have agreed to it, but by the same token, let's

assume that main justice ultimately disagreed. Is that from
a main justice perspective? And maybe I'm coming at this
from a -- you know, being informed by having been at main
justice.

Q Mm~hmm

A Where there was talk about, can you believe what
this AUSA -- this AUSA may have done or may not have done

without consulting, that these are serious issues. They

establish precedent,

They == you know, maybe the DAG would have said,
this is not the kind of thing we'd support, and this is
wrong. And so, at the end of the day, let's move forward,
but if -- once these issues are raised, I don't think a U.S.
Attorney should say main justice should not review this.

I think we're part of one department, and these are

valid issues. Main justice doesn't need to take months to

review this. Main justice can expedite their review, but

EFTA00009143


—

wf

10

11

12

13

17

18

19

20

23

24

25

Page 328

those are valid issues for the deputy and the ARG to review.

Q But one could look at it and say, well, those are
all issues that the defense certainly knew about before they
signed that agreement, and having signed the agreement, they
are waiving all of that. That's what contracts are for.

You've got all these issues, don't sign the contract.

:) And if I could, I think there's a December letter.
I don't know if it's -- if it's in the exhibits, but there's
a December letter that I wrote that, for me, is --

Q This is the 19th?

RB Maybe it's the 19th. Let me --

Q Or the --

MS. HEN The 19th is the =-- your sort of

ill-fated NPA addendum effort.

THE WITNESS No. No, a letter to -- to Ken Starr

that I -- that I wrote. But --

ME. [1 IT TB The 4th letter is to Ken Starr.

THE WITNESS I'm sorry?

MRE. | TE Is it the December 4th letter?

THE WITNESS Yeah, it's probably --

ME. I: December 47

THE WITNESS It's the December 4th.

MS,  E Yeah, it didn't have a date.

MS. HI: #!! right. That's the one you

wrote ==

EFTA00009144


Page 325

1 THE WITNESS So =--
2 MS. EE: -- :o him --
3 THE WITNESS == s0 --
4 MS. ll: -- in response to the --
5 THE WITNESS So --
6 M5. EE: - 22.55 issue.
7 THE WITNESS I think, you know, I -- you know, I'm
8 starting on page four. I have responded personally in some
9 detail to your concerns because I care deeply about both the
10 law and the integrity of this office. I have responded
11 personally and in detail as well, because your letter
12 troubled me on a number of levels. Upon your understanding
13 of the negotiations are. The 22.55 was first discussed July
14 31st.
| 15 You know, and one of these four points in -- in the
16 middle of 2007, your defense team decides -- asked to meet
17 with me. On September 7th, I met. After considering of the
18 arguments, and after conferring with FBI and 11] ] IHEINE
1% our office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that
20 time, I offered to delay -- our prosecutors to delay
21 presentation to allew you to appeal our decision if you
Il 22 choose. You chose not to.
23 Instead, you elected to enter inte the NPA. Since
24 the signing of this agreement, the feds in our office have
25 addressed several issues that have arisen, although the
= ES I

EFTA00009145



12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 — a —

Page 330

exchanges at the time were a bit litigious,

sv vs. |

Q This -- could I -- could I thought point out --

2) Yeah.

Q == that this letter is in response to not the at
the request for a review by the criminal division, that comes
later. This is in response to Ken Starr's letter to ns
Il :tcut -- raising 22.55 -- 22.55 issues that had not
been raised with you before.

A Right, which is -- which is in essence a review. I
mean, he -- they're coming to main justice, and you know,
it's against these many previous foregone opportunities to
cbject that I receive with surprise your letter requesting an
11th hour after the fact review of our agreement. Although
it happens rarely, I don't mind this office's decision being
appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our
prosecutors to delay.

Indeed, I'm confident in our prosecutor's evidence
and legal analysis. I nonetheless
directed them to consult with subject matter experts in the
criminal CEOS division to confer to our interpretation of the
law before proceeding with this indictment. So, I guess, you
know, we consulted CEOS.

I'm thus surprised to read a letter addressed to

the department headquarters that raises issues that either

EFTA00009146



Page 331

1 have not been raised with this office previously, or have

2 been raised and in fact resolved in your client's favor.

3 I'm troubled likewise by the apparent lack of

4 finality in this agreement. The AUSAs have been negotiating

5 with defense counsel and have for sometimes complained to me

& regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears
7 to them that as scon as resolution is reached on one issue,

B defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution

9 collaterally.

10 Q So, this is your protest of, it sounds like Starr's
11 effort to bypass you and go to BEE ith new issues?
12 : It is, and I'm pushing back in that, was I inviting
13 this, or was I sort of saying -- you know, that said, there

14 must be some closure on this matter.

15 Some in our cffice are deeply concerned that

16 defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges
17 to provisions of this agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has
18 entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement

19 difficult, if not impossible to unwind. In closing, I ask
20 that you consult with co-counsel.

21 If after consultation with your defense team you

22 believe that our agreement is unethical, unlawful, or

23 unconstitutional, I'd ask us that you notify us immediately
24 s0 we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I've

25 consulted the chief prosecutor in this case who has advised

EFTA00009147


— — —
| Page 332 |

1 me that she's ready to unwind the agreement and proceed to

2 trial if necessary, or appropriate,

3 Q So, are you suggesting that this represents your
| 4 protest of their appeal to INE -

5 Rn S0 ==

6 Q == on this point?

7 EB So, protest is a -- is a loaded word. What I'm

suggesting is, this is not an invitation to appeal to main |

9 justice. This is sort of saying, enough is enough is enough.
10 Q But Mr. Acosta, in fairness, this, to clarify --
11 A Right.
12 Q == this is in response to a letter directed to
13 HEE ::ted November 28th --
14 A Right.
| 15 Q -- 2007 raising issues that he had not raised with |

16 you. The appeal subsequently that I was asking about was --

17 A Right.

18 Q == an appeal for a de novo review -- a de novo

19 review of the whole case.

20 A Understood, and my -- the reason that I -- that I
21 read this, you know, is this is not -- on the one hand, I'm
22 saying we do not fear review, but I don't -- this is not an
23 invitation to defense counsel to do a de novo -- I am not
24 inviting them. I'm not saying, let's have more review. I'm

25 saying, encugh's enough. If they appeal, that's fine, but

— _—

EFTA00009148


Page 333

1 this is not an invitation to appeal.

2 Q But there was nothing you could do to stop their

3 appeal, right? Except indict?

4 B And so the department shouldn't stop an appeal to

5 main justice by -- you know, by threatening.

3 Q Fair enough.

7 Fa) Because main justice has a right to review.

g Q I should have said that -- that this -- that this

9 appeal process was stymying progress in resolving the Epstein
10 case.

11 A It was.

12 Q And you had no way -- you had no recourse, other
13 than, at least theoretically, you could have just said, you
14 know, we're --

15 A Right.

16 Q == going to tear it up and indict, because you're

17 in breach, in effect.

18 A Which would have raised civil litigation --

19 Q Litigation.

20 A == overlays, which is the point that I thought

21 merited --

22 Q All right.

23 a) -- at least flushing out.

24 BY M5. HIN:

25 Q So, short of the department itself getting a move

—— |

EFTA00009149


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 334
on, and getting this thing through expeditiously, did you

feel like you just had to sit there and wait for everything
to get done?

A I'm not sure sit there and wait, but -- but
ultimately, the case did not get better with time, and there
was frustration on our apart about, you know, the witnesses
are not getting better. You know, time --

Q They're getting older.

2) They're getting -- which goes back to how a juror

may see them.

ME. ER: Right.

THE WITNESS And I do recall conversations of their
getting older, you know, this case is not getting better. We
now have the civil overlay that we need to deal with. And
so, yes, that =-- there was process, but while there was,
should we just call it a day, all of that factored into,

well, if the department is reviewing the department is

reviewing.

BY MS. HERE
Q Okay. Are you -- what is your view of whether the
criminal division's review encompassed the NPA itself?
3 So, the criminal division, by its terms, did not --
did not encompass the -- the NPA. I would say that's
different than the deputy's review that encompassed the

totality of the -- of the circumstances.

EFTA00009150


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 335
Q Okay. Did you discuss the -- did you have

conversations with the DAG -- with Mark Filip about this
casa?

n Not to my recollection.

Q Okay, and we've already talked about the submission
that NIE BRN made on behalf of your office?

A Which =-=- which -- yes, which I thought was a
fulsome submission, and included the draft indictment, the
NPA. I believe it included the term sheet and other
documents.

Q Did you or anyone else to your knowledge ask CDAG
to review or assess the NPA, or approve it?

A Not to -- before signature, not to my recollection,

but it was part of the ultimate review when I submitted

the matter to the deputy, he included the --

Q It was --

A -= the agreement.
Q It was included. Their very brief letter, you
remember --

2 Mr ~hmm.

Q == the letter that BE I

A Yes.

Q == authored, that he authored. Addressed really
only the issue of the appropriateness of the case for

prosecution in your office. It did not in any way reference

EFTA00009151



DY_————e

Page 336
1 the disposition, the plea agreement, or the NPA.

2 Fy So -- so, it was a brief letter. Based on |
3 submission, I would have read that letter as, they had all
| 4 the material in front of them, and they were saying that

5 there was no misconduct or abuse of discretion.

Bb Q That's correct, but they did not say that they

i contacted -- that they addressed or assessed, reviewed even.
8 They didn't say they reviewed or approved the NPA.

| 2) They -- I again, you know, I -- if the letter is

10 here, I don't know, but --

11 Q Yeah. TI have it right here. It's not marked as an

12 exhibit, but this is 11d [100 letter to Jay Lefkowitz and

fl 13 Ken Starr dated --

14 A Right.

15 Q == June 23, 2008 It states that this office,

16 meaning the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, has

| 17 completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling
18 of the matter involving your client.

19 n And =--

20 Q And addresses the -- or, states that they've

21 received and reviewed submissions from both parties, and then
22 states that the deputy attorney general, "Will intervene only

23 in the most unusual of circumstances," in a U.S. Attorney's

24 matter, and, "we do not believe such intervention is

25 warranted here. Even if we were to substitute our judgement

EFTA00009152



- — mm

Page 337

1 for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal

2 prosecution of this case is appropriate. Moreover, having

3 reviewed your allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and

4 the facts underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of

3 the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any reason to

& alter," --

7 A Right.

8 Q -= "pur opinion."

9 -Y And so, so, if I could point out, this office has
10 completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling
11 of the matter. And so, handling is a broad -- is a broad
12 term, and in reference to, we believe that federal
13 prosecution of this case is appropriate, the way I recalled
14 reading that is, the federal prosecution of this case, the
15 argument was that the agreement was inappropriate because
16 this case should not have even been prosecuted, and therefore
17 that the disposition -- the federal prosecution of this case,
18 was appropriate.

19 And so, the handling of the matter, we reviewed the
20 handling of the matter, not -- not the agreement, but the
21 handling of the matter, and that the ultimate disposition,
22 1f == you know, is at least not an abuse of discretion, or is
23 appropriate.
24 Q That's how you read it?
25 n That -- that is how I read it.
= —

EFTA00009153



fle

oD

13

14

13

16

22

23

24

23

Page 338
Q And did you ever discuss that -- did you ever

discuss with anyone in ODAG what the scope of their review

was?

3 Not to -- not to my recollection. It was a fulsome
submission.

Q Correct, but if -- if =-- but the issues presented

by the defense were essentially federalism issues, right?

A So, the =-- the -- again, this is -- this is based

on, you know, as much recollection as contemporaneous record.
The issues presented by the defense were, it -- in essence,
it was the heart of the non-prosecution agreement, which is,
was 1t -- was it an abuse of discretion to -- to proceed in

this case in the way that we did on the grounds that there

may not -- there should not have been a federal prosecution
in the first place, or that we were using federal criminal

law to == to elicit a civil outcome.
Bnd so, I don't think it's fair to sort of

narrow == you can't -- you can't say that our handling was --

you know, that their handling was reviewed without reviewing
the non-prosecution agreement. |

Q Do you have any reason to believe that the -- that

either ODAG or the criminal division did -- well, that the

CDAG, let's stick with that --

A Right.

Q == did in fact review the NPA, other than to be

EFTA00009154


oo

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 5s |

aware it existed, whatever its status might have been?

Rh 30, again, it was clearly submitted. It was

clearly referenced.

Q Mim — humm .
A And it was clearly part of the complaint. The
complaint -- the heart of the complaint about our office was

that we were using this agreement to impose civil liability.

And so, I think it is fair to infer if the complaint

implicates the agreement, that the agreement would have been

reviewed.

Q That -- but that's your inference. You don't have
any == you don't =-- didn't have any specific communications
with ODAG --

A I don't --

Q == to that effect?

RB I don't recall a specific communication.

Q All right. Okay. I would like to take a short

break. We're getting there.

B I hear you.

Q There is --

A I'm good.

Q -- one area that my colleague, HE En vill
take on --

A Mm-hmm.

Q -- which has to do with the CVRA --

EFTA00009155


10

11

12

13

20
B
22
23

24

25

— a
Page 340
B Right.
Q == and then we have some kind of wind up questions.
A Okay.
ME. ll Can we -- before we take a break,

can I just --

us. EE Ves

ME. SE I'll try to queue up what's going to

be coming next =--

THE WITNESS Mm-hmm.

MR. LF -- and maybe that'll help us move

through it, because --

THE WITNESS Right.

ME. Sl: -- vou've been through a very long

day.

THE WITNESS Yeah.

ME. [1D We appreciate your -- the time
you've put inte this. You've been here for quite a long
time.

THE WITNESS Well, yeah.

sY ME. |:

Q The area that I want to discuss after the break has I

to do with the ultimate notification to the victims about the

resolution of the case, the state plea, and the result of the
federal investigation, and there's going to be -- we have

documents that are in your -- that are already marked there

— _

EFTA00009156


Page 341 |

1 that might be helpful if you take a look at a couple of them
2 so we don't have te go through -- maybe during the break so

3 we don't have to go through them one by one, or I can just

wh

give you a very quick overview of sort of where we're going.

I want to find out basically how you were getting

an

from there -- what would be the -- the state asking for the
7 U.S. Attorney's Office to make the notification to the

8 victims about the upcoming state plea that happens in

¢ November of 2007.

10 That would be document 32b, to the defense then
11 finding out that the government want to notify the victims by (
12 letter, and then demanding that they see the letter and have
13 some kind of comment on it. That would be document 33, an e-

14 mail from Lefkowitz.

15 Then we have an exchange of letters, but the one

16 I'd like you to look at is document 37, which is a letter
17 coming from HEE to the defense -- not now, but you know,
18 during the break. So, I want to find out how we get from

19 that document, 36, where Bl is writing --

20 M5. HE: :c-
21 BY ME.

22 Q -- as letter saying that =-- citing the CVRA

23 regulations saying that the government is obligated to notify
24 the victims about the resolution of the case, and attaching a

23 draft letter to the victims telling them the time and date of

_ 1

EFTA00009157


£

11

12

13

14

17

18

15

20

22

23

24

23

the state resolution and plea, inviting them to come.

To ultimately a letter from you coming on the 19th

Page 342

of December 2007, which is No. 41b agreeing to not notify the

victims of the state plea, and agreeing with the defense to

have the state be responsible for putting out that

notification.

And then we end ultimately with a letter or draft

letter that we have that goes out te the victims in the case

on -- after the plea in July.
going to show you, which comes in June, showing that the

letter was clearly meant to be sent after the plea as per the

agreement, and that is document number 51.

A

Q

Okay. That's --

So, it's a lot to =--
That's a --

-=- unpack there.

That's a lot to unpack. We should

the time?

Well, we have the draft I'm

probably take it

Q Yes. I just wanted to =-- |
Fil All right.
Q == give you an overview, because I think that some
of what you had mentioned earlier -- and I know -- I know
it's --
2) Yeah.
Q -=- been a long time, so --

EFTA00009158


Page 343

1 A Yeah.
2 Q == I'll try to orient you for the timelines. Se,
3 if you'd just have a -- I've highlighted the sections of

| 4 those letters that we want to talk about, and if you have a
2 chance while we're taking a break to look through them, that
6 may help orient you so that we're not --
7 B Right.

Q == spinning our wheels on this. I don't want to

9 waste any of your time.

10 A Fair.
fl 11 MS. |: All right. Off the record. |
12 (Off the record.)
13 Ms. I: All right. Back on the record.
14 YR. |: Rre we back on the record?

I 15 Ms. IN: tes.
16 BY ME. | :

17 Q Okay, great. So, I know I gave you a lot to unpack
18 over the short break we just had. One -- basically what
19 we're trying to get to find out is how the =-- your decision

20 making process regarding the victim notification issue. So,
21 maybe if you could just give us a -- anything with your

| 22 December 15th decision, could you give us an explanation I

23 about how you got there?

24 2) So, I think we should probably take this in stages.

25 Q Okay.

L

EFTA00009159


Page 344

1 2 As a general matter, I recall that there was back

2 and forth regarding -- after the agreement -- regarding how

3 to notify the victims, and there was back and forth between

4 I BE nd Jay Lefkowitz and {ij azound all that.

5 Sorry, I'm losing my voice.

I recall that there was an issue in particular that

7 was raised that I tried to address in the letter, and I
8 recall at the end of the day, it was my impression that once
9 there was an agreement for him to plead, that there was an

10 attempt by [jj tc provide notice to the victims, but it was

11 a very -- it was I think on a Friday, and he was pleading on
12 a Monday morning or something along those lines.

13 And finally, I recall that the view of the office
14 was that the CVRA did not apply, and so that this was a

15 discretionary balancing that included consideration of what

16 impact notification of the 22.55s would have at trial -- the
17 22.55 provision, if we had to go to trial. So, we can -- we
18 can unpack that, but those are my -- my general

18 recollections.

20 Q Okay.

21 1} And look, let me -- let me add, I -- so, I think
22 it's important =-- so, I came in and out of the case at

23 stages, and -- and I was involved in certain aspects more

24 than others, and while we had a long discussion about the

terms sheet and matters like that, while I was clearly

EFTA00009160


Page 345

1 invelved in at least one dispute around the 22.55, the nuts

2 and bolts of how victims were notified is not something that

3 I have a recollection about.
4 Q Okay. Fair.
5 B But we can unpack it.
6 Q Okay. Let's start with the Exhibit 33. So, there,
7 we have an -- as you can see, it's an e-mail from Lefkowitz -
8 -
TE.
10 Q == to you, and to Ji} objecting to the -- a

11 letter being sent to the victims, unless the defense gets to |
12 review it. And later on in some of your other

13 correspondence, you discuss that you -- you extended to the
14 defense the courtesy of allowing them to review these

15 letters. Is this the genesis of that courtesy?

16 2} I can't -- I don't have a recollection as to what
17 the genesis might be. I know that there was back and forth
18 between our office and the defense about the -- that letter.

| 19 Q Okay, but as you can see on 33 that you're not on

20 the response from [J but JJ instructs IHEER to

21 send the proposed letter to Lefkowitz, and -- |
22 A Yeah.
23 Q == I assume that [jij wouldn't have done that had

24 you objected to it.

25 B Again, I don't -- I don't recall any specific

EFTA00009161


10

11

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

—— —_—————e—e—————— yy

Page 346

conversation. As a general matter, this is not something I

was getting into the weeds on unless I had to. There was a

lot of back and forth.
Q Mm~hmm.
B Bl is someone that I trusted. He was handling

this matter. He's incredibly experienced. I know that there

were concerns and issues around the impact that notification
would have on the witnesses. I know there were -- there were
issues around the language, and I trusted that folks were

working those out.

Q Mm-hmm. One of the -- the criticisms that's come

post, you know, the CVRA --

3 Right.

Q == litigation that's been the government allowing
the defense to have review of these letters, or potential
vietim notification letters coming out of the government, and

that that's unusual. Have you ever -- have you had any other

cases where you've let the defense review such documents?

n I've had no other cases where I'm even aware of
victims being notified, because I assume it all operates
without it rising to management level.

Q Mm-hmm .

A And so this is the first and only time that how

individuals are notified, to my recollection, was even in the

executive suite.

EFTA00009162


10

11

14

15

16

17

18

21

22

23

24

25

Page 347

Q Mm-hmm. Isn't that usually done -- accomplished by

almost a computerized task?
A I == I would assume so, so yes.
Q And it's a -- given that that's the usual way that

notifications are made by a vietim witness specialist, who is
usually that person?

E Yas,

Q Do I have that right? And so, the FBI has their
victim witness specialist?

A ies.

Q And your office, the U.S. Attorney's Office has
dedicated people who do that job as well?

2 Correct.

Q So, why in this case, not direct, the -- this --
this notification to that person to be done in the usual
course, why elevate to something that the defense is going to
be able to review?

pil So, so, I can't address the second half of that,
but the first half of that question, why -- why was it

elevated? You know, I think 1] | | addressed some of that in

her, was it 2017 affidavit, and -- and so, we had an
agreement that had been signed, and we also had substantial
questions as to whether that agreement -- whether ultimately

Jeffrey Epstein would plead in court or not.

And so, one of the questions is, how do you deal

EFTA00009163

— — — EE


10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

Page 348

with notification of a possibility, where that possibility

could be used to impeach potential future witnesses who are

also the victims, and that is a matter that was being worked
out by the AUSAs in the office.

Q And the -- and the impeachment is what?

A And so, the impeachment -=- and I -- I would -- I

believe [jf went into it in some detail, is you stand --

you, Miss Victim, stand to gain quite a bit of money if
there's a conviction, correct?

Isn't -- weren't you aware of this agreement, if we
have to go to trial? Weren't you aware of this agreement?

And this isn't based on my recollection. This is based on

the | 2ffidavit, where she says that she had concerns
that the impeachment go along -- somewhere along the lines
of, were you aware that if Mr. Epstein's convicted, you stand
to receive substantial sums? Yes. Were you influenced by
this?

And there was some -- according to her affidavit,

this isn't my independent recollection, this is according to
her affidavit, there had already been dispositions of the
victims -- of at least some of the victims that raised these
issues. And so, I do think it was a valid concern by the

AUSAs how these notifications took place.

Q Okay, but isn't that the -- that type of line of

cross examination the same for any case where there's a super

EFTA00009164


SE
Page 349
1 wealthy defendant?
2 A It may be. The 22.55 may make it a little
3 different because it's automatic, but ultimately, these are
4 the judgements that line attorneys make, and as U.S.
5 Attorney, I think it's appropriate to back up their judgment
6 unless there was some reason for me to believe it was
7 incorrect.
B Q Was there any thought ever to just giving the
9 victims notification that there will be a proceeding that
10 will end the federal case, just separating that in a -- maybe
11 a later notification about the 22.557?
12 n I can't speak to what thought there was or was not.
13 I can say around this time frame, it was far from clear that
14 there would ever be -- that Epstein would ever go into court,
15 and we were thinking we may have to just go to trial, because
16 these collateral attacks keep going.
17 Q Okay. Okay. Let's get back on track to the -- the
18 question that I asked earlier about allowing the defense the
1% courtesy to lock at these letters. Is -- can you just remind
20 us again, what was -- what was the reasoning that you're --
21 that they're allowed to lock at the --
22 B So ==
23 Q == victim notification letters?
24 A I can't speak to that. This is something that --
25 that i} and J] would have handled. I think that, you
ee SI _ _

EFTA00009165


—_———

Page 350
1 know, I'm responsible for the office. I'm not shirking, I'm
2 Just saying that this is -- that this was for the most part
3 within their wheelhouse, and not something that -- that I was
4 involved in. I can -- I can speculate,
5 Q Sure. |
6 A The agreement was notifying them -- the letter was

1 notifying them of certain rights in the agreement, and
8 therefore, this is a time when we weren't sure what was
9 happening with the agreement. And so, perhaps this was a way

10 to -- to address some of the concerns around the 22.55. I

11 don't knew. I'm just speculating.
12 Q Okay. Let's move onto Exhibit 36. This is a

13 letter that goes out to Lefkowitz under Hil signature.

14 You are cee'd on the letter.

15 2A All right. |

16 Q And what he is doing is sending a draft victim

17 notification letter, which is attached as the attachment
18 there, dated December 6th, 2007. And I wanted to get your

1% impressions of -- if you go to page three of the letter,

20 please? And that -- the first little paragraph there, when

21 it --
22 R Mm~ hrm .
23 Q == refers to the Victims’ Rights and Restitution

24 Act, and then ultimate for the CVRA, if you could just read

25 that paragraph to yourself, please?

EFTA00009166


Page 351
1 A Are you referring to paragraph 107?
2 Q I'm sorry, I'm not on the -- I'm on the letter,
3 not == I'm sorry, I'm on the --
fl 4 A oh.
5 Q -- left -- the letter to --
& A SOrry.
7 Q -=- Lefkowitz, not the draft letter. This one right
g here.
9 A The additicnally?
10 Q Yes, additionally, pursuant to the Victims’ Rights
11 and Restitution Act of 1990, our office is obligated,
12 etcetera.
13 A Okay.
14 Q Do you agree with that language? That
15 interpretation of the wvictims' rights, as far as the
16 notification?
17 4) So, let's == let's sort of take this -- this one
il 18 sentence at a time. With respect to notification of other
19 information that we were supposed to disclose, the statute
20 requires that we provide victims with the earliest possible
21 notice of -- I -- I will assume that that is a restatement of
l.. the statute.
23 I don't have it in front of me, but let's assume
24 that that's a restatement of the statute. Just as in 18,
25 these sections are not limited te -- the victims, through
EE EE

EFTA00009167


10

11

12

15

16

17

18

21

22

23

24

25

Page 352

this federal -- should be appropriately informed that a non-
pros does not require to forego its legal obligation. On a
sentence by sentence basis, I mean, do I agree, sitting here?
Sure, but I would want to sort of sit down before I gave a
legal opinion and spent more time with it, but --

Q Okay, because coming out of your office, sort of
this and that -- well, let's go to the next page, page four.

A Yeah.

Q There is a citation to the right to confer in the
first paragraph there, citing the CVRA's reascnable right to
confer with the attorneys of the government in this case.

A Okay.

Q So, we have -- you know, it locks like to me -- I
mean, let's --

A Right.

Q == well, it -- it appears that there is two
references to the CVRA obligations that the government has
that ultimately the government argues that it did not have.
Can you explain why that is a correct interpretation?

p= So, what I can say is I recall -- so, it looks like
at least some of the victims were notified. I recall a
discussion and a view that the CVRA did not require it -- it
was discretionary, because it wasn't -- the case had not
indicted, so it did not attach on its terms. That doesn't

mean that it's not something you aspire to. That just means

EFTA00009168



Tu]

10

11

12

13

14

13

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

Page 353

it wasn't legally binding.
Q So -- and in the same manner though, while the CVRA
isn't legally binding, it also doesn't prevent you from

notifying the victims, does it?

A It does not, no.

Q And you have the discretion to notify, should you
choose to.

A Correct.

Q Okay. And so, if you lock at the letter that's
attached to this, this is a draft that goes out where on page
one -- two -- page three of the letter, and the second to
last paragraph, the letter is giving notice of Mr. Epstein's
change of plea and sentencing that will occur on -- well, at
this time, it was December 14th at 2007, and it gives the
address, and it says underneath there you are entitled to be
present and make a statement under oath.

If you choose, you can submit a written statement

under cath, etcetera, etcetera. So, this is a letter that's
actively inviting victims to come to the state. Would you
agree that that's inviting victims to come to the state plea?
B That -- I think that's fair.
Q And with the letter's reasoning that the government

is sending -- would like to send this letter because it

believes it's cbligated to, because it resolves the federal

casa?

EFTA00009169


Page 354

1 2) So, I == I doen't want to speak to the reasoning,

2 but it's clearly a draft that the government is saying, it

3 intends to send.

4 Q Okay. Now, ultimately, just this is not a

5 question, just --

6 A Got it.

7 Q -- some information that will help to move us

8 along.

E A Right.

10 Q The -- obviously, this letter is never sent. Ms.
11. BH i:afts, we have them, and I'm not going to show
12 them to you, 30 letters, copies of the letter --
13 A Right.

14 Q == to different victims, addresses them, puts them
15 in envelopes, and is then told not to send the letters.

16 A All right. Well, the plea never -- it's scheduled
17 for December 14th, so yeah.

18 Q Yes, but one of the issues that's still percolating
19 until the end of December is whe is going to make this
20 notification? Because as you can expect, the defense pushes
21 back on this letter,

22 And so now we go to the -- the -- number 39,

23 please? And this is a December 11th, 2007 letter from Ken
24 Starr to you, and if you lock on page two, at the front -- at
25 the top of the -- the top of the page there, he is -- this

RE EE EE

EFTA00009170



10

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ee)

ee

Page 3535
letter is complaining about an oral notification that Ms.

BEEN c:v: to a -- one of the defense -- one of the

victim's attorneys that a letter would be coming.

And so, Mr. Starr is writing you to complain about
it, and he mentions in -- later in that paragraph that we
have thought that the notification process had been in
abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with
respect to that process. So, were you having discussions

with Mr. Starr about the process at this time?

A I don't recall discussions. I -- I think there was
at least correspondence, or =- I'm sorry, where are you? I
was reading the -- reading the letter. This =-- I'm SOrry,

where are you? What paragraph?
Q Let's take a lock == and it's been a long day.

Let's slow down here. We're on the second page of the Starr

latter.

A Yes.

Q And it would be this and that, the -- the language

in there -- in the second sentence, which goes towards the
bottom.

A This notification, but quite apart from our
substantive concerns, which -- we had thought the

notification process had been in abeyance until the
completion. That appears not te be so. This is

respectfully -- so, where does it imply that I was having --

EFTA00009171


Page 356

1 I don't recall communications with Mr. Starr, that's why I'm
2 curious where -- at least verbal communications. I'm curious
3 where you're reading that from.

4 Q I thought he -- he's saying, we had thought that

3 the notification process had been held in abeyance until

6 completion of our ongoing discussions. Are you saying that

7 that's -- he's --

8 A So, I don't know where that may have come from, and
9 I don't recall. TI recall at one point -- I think I sent a

10 letter saying we'll hold off for a week. I don't recall the
11 date of that letter, while you review some matters. Where
12 the abeyance came from, I can't -- I can't speak to.

13 Q Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 41b. This is your

14 December 19th letter, and what I'd like to draw your

15 attention to is page two, the second to last paragraph there.
16 B Yes.

17 Q So, could you tell us how your decision making

18 around this paragraph, how you got to this decision?

19 1) So, so, you're asking me to recreate -- IT -- at

20 some point, the issue clearly moved from I interacting

21 with defense counsel to -- to my desk, and my recollection 12
22 years after the fact is -- so, you're saying we shouldn't

23 notify them about the state proceeding, and sure, the

24 state -- this was negotiated between Epstein and the state

25 attorney.

_ _— |

EFTA00009172



Page 357

We did not direct the state proceeding. So,

2 whatever state process is appropriate for the state process |
3 will be given. But with respect to the federal resolution,

4 we intend to provide victims with notice of the federal

5 resolution as required by law, and your question is if we
6 thought it was discretionary.
I recall our believing it was discretionary, but

8 you could also -- it doesn't hurt to in a letter say we're

9 kind of required to do this, and I think it was the right

10 thing to provide them notice of the federal resolution.
| 11 And once that resolution was reached, and part of
12 the key word is what the resolution is, my understanding is

13 that [Jl made efforts to notify victims of that resolution

14 and let them know that -- that there would be a hearing the

15 following Monday, that they should attend, because these --

| 16 it would bring an end to the case.
17 Q Well, let's just back up real quick. As far as --

18 so, do you -- as far as the state attorney notifying people

19 of -- victims of the --
20 1 Right.

21 Q -- state resolution, did you have any concerns with

22 that particular part of it?

23 Fa) So, difficult to recreate the thought process 12

24 years later, but ultimately you've got federal, and you've

25 got state, and the state attorney will do what the state

I EE

EFTA00009173


abs

uo

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

a3

24

23

Page 358

attorney thinks is appropriate. It's not for me to direct

the state attorney.

I'm inferring, based on this language, it's not for
me to direct the state attorney, or for our office to direct
the state attorney's office on its obligations with respect
to the state outcome.

Q Okay. I'm just asking because, you know, the whole
case came to your office because of some issues with the
state attorney's resolution of the case. So, now it's going
back, and they're going to be in charge of the notification.
Did that raise any flags with you, or did you have any
concern about whether it would be done correctly, or done at
all?

BR So, again, you've —- I -- this has come up in
different contexts, and I think it's -- there was obviously a
concern about how it was being charged, but that doesn't mean
that they will not fulfill whatever obligations they have.

Let's not assume that -- that the state attorney's office is

full of bad actors.

Q Okay.

sv vs. EN

Q But even if not assuming that they're full of bad

actors --
2) Right.
Q == it's going to be difficult for them to notify

EFTA00009174


Page 359
1 the victims, wasn't it, that they didn't even necessarily
2 know the same list as the federal victims, because you had
3 found more victims.
4 A So, we could certainly have shared that list with
3 them. I mean, there are -- there are ways that this could
6 have happened. I don't know how -- what the communication
7 were, but as a conceptual matter, having the state notify
8 them of the state hearing and having the federal government
9 say, and this is the federal resolution, is consistent with
10 the law.
11 Q But since the federal resclution is tied to the
12 state plea, is -- why not just combine the two of them in the
13 notification? Here's the federal resolution. We're tying it
14 to the state plea, and here's --
15 A Right.
16 Q == the date of the state plea?
17 Fa) I can't speak to the why not. I can -- you know, I
18 can speak to my belief that this would be consistent with
19 law. That could also be one approach. I can't speak to why
20 A versus B.
21 Q Did somebody instruct you that -- or did you have a
22 conversation consulting with somebody about whether this was
23 the better approach?
24 2) I == I would have said -- you know, based on
25 practice -- not recollection, but based on practice, I would
ee EEE

EFTA00009175



Page 360

1 have sat down with Jill, most likely, since he was handling

2 this matter, and we would have talked about it. I == I would
3 not have sent this without running it by at least Bl i:

4 not other individuals in the office. I don't know if based

5 on your record there is -- there's e-mails with drafts, but

6 you know, every document that I'm aware of was sort of shared
7 within the management team, and this would have been one of

8 those.

9 Q With respect to that one specific decision about

10 this should be at the discretion of the state's attorney, did

11 you consult with anybody in D.C. about that issue?
12 iY I don't recall consulting with someone in D.C.
13 about this issue. I recall a general perspective that the

14 CVRA as a technical matter did not attach because ultimately

15 this was not -=- it hadn't -- this was not an indictment.
16 BY ME. [EE

17 Q Oh, can we -- before we leave this letter --
18 R If I could, I -- I -- and I understand your

19 questions, but I feel some obligation to raise the tension

20 between, did you consult in D.C. versus should you allow D.C.

21 review,
22 And so, just, you know, we certainly were allowing
23 review, but U.S. Attorney's Offices don't consult on every

24 matter, especially offices that have the kind of

23 experience ==

EFTA00009176


10

11

14

13

14

15

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

us. TE hom.

THE WITNESS -- that Miami does.
ME. I Gack to me?

Ms. | tm-hmm.

M5. EE oho.

M5. J EBack to you.

BY ME.

Q Before we finish with this letter from the 19th,
can we look at page three, please? There is -- if you could
read the first paragraph on page three to yourself, please?

A Okay.

Q Could you == in that sectien, you mention that
prosecutors had asked you to declare a breach, and you
resisted. Can you discuss that?

pl S50 -- sure. That's -- that's referencing -- I
think increasing frustrations by the -- by the prosecutors,
and I think that's reflected in contemporaneous e-mails
saying, why don't we just rip this up?

And I recall conversations with 0 and that goes
a little bit to what we talked about earlier, which is
concern that a unilateral breach would overlay not just the
initial issues that we had, and not just the fact that the
victims are getting older and the case isn't getting better,

but then we have, was the unilateral breach a valid breach,

Or was it not a valid breach?

EFTA00009177



Page 362

1 And is -- is the delay justified or not justified.

2 And ultimately, that additional -- that additional |
3 liability -- not liability, that additional legal uncertainty

4 was == would have made the case even harder, because they

5 were very careful to always say there is no breach.

6 us. EE v-h

7 THE WITNESS Let me -- let me address, because I

8 went on To read the next paragraph as well. And so let me

9 circle back to an earlier issue =-

10 ME. I: Great.

11 THE WITNESS =-- because I at least want to address

12 it because the next paragraph then says, and it's clear that

13 I'm increasingly frustrated. It's against that -- that my
14 frustration with it appears to be an 11th hour appeal weeks
15 before the now scheduled July 4th plea date. That said, the

16 issues raised are important and must be fully vetted

17 irrespective of timelines concerns. We hope to preserve the
18 July 4th date.
19 I understand defense counsel shares our -- with

20 this in mind, and in the event the defense counsel may wish

21 to seek review of our determination in Washington, I spoke

22 this past Monday with Attorney Geni confirming if it's
23 possible appearing to ask her to grant the potential request
24 for review, and te in fact review this case in an expedited

25 manner in an attempt to preserve the July 4th date.

Rep— ——— ————————

EFTA00009178


10

11

12

13

14

15

le

18

1%

20

21

23

24

25

rr —— a
Page 363

MR. Jf: January 4th.

MS, [11] E That address -- January.

THE WITNESS I'm sorry, the January 4th plea date.

Sorry, it's --

sv vs. NE.

Q And that addresses the question I was asking.

A And that goes to the question you're asking, and
again, I'm recreating and I'm speculating. Having that
following the -- another 11th hour appeal here, I would say

I == I wouldn't say, let's appeal this again. I think I'm

saying pretty clearly, it's against my frustration with what
appears to be an 11th hour appeal weeks before the now
scheduled July -- January 4th plea date that this is not an
invitation to do another appeal, because the appeal is

already in Washington.

But my =-- my saying, if -- if we're going to do

this appeal, let's get it over and done with, then I'm sort |
of speculating based on the language, so that we can get this
pled on January 4th, and let's not put it off until after the

holidays.

Q But you did say, "To ask her to grant the potential

request,” -- |
FA Which is --
Q == "for review."
B Which is why I wanted to on my own raise it,

EE EN

EFTA00009179


13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 364

because is that saying please appeal me, or is that saying --

this is an llth hour appeal that vou have now taken ta
Washington.

It 1s December 19th. We're about to go into the
holidays. There's a January 4th plea date. This should not
be another way to put it off. And so, if you're going to do

this, I'm going to try to expedite it so we can get this

done.

Q And in fact, it took until May --

A Yeah.

je] == 15.

A And it did, and apologies, I just realized my voice
is ==

Q All right.

A -- rising. So, I don't know if that's my
frustration at reading this again, or it's getting late, but
it -- but it was a frustrating matter. Apologies.

2v vr.

Q Let's just move to Exhibit 46. So, this is an e-
mail from Ms. [EE to vou and JJ] discussing how she
has interviewed some victims that day. There's a mention
that one of the victims said that she would rather not get
any money and she'd have -- she would rather have Epstein
spend a significant time in jail. Did that piece of

information go into your character list at all about how the

EFTA00009180


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 3
case should be resolved?

RB So, again, not based on recollection, because thi
is maybe if not 12, 11 years ago.

Q Okay.

A But at this point, there had been an agreement.
The agreement was signed. It was being reviewed. Based on
this e-mail, we're trying to get and expedite the criminal
division, because I -- I see it says please reach to [1111]
make her decision.

And I -- I think at this point, as I said, if --
we knew earlier -- if we knew that it was going to go this
long and take all of this, I think we may have approached t
case differently, but we were so far along on this, there w
a signed agreement.

The United States can't unwind an agreement just
because it's frustrated, or just because some victim
indicates that they don't like it. That's not —-- you know,

if the agreement is not legally valid, if there are some

65

5

to

if

he

as

other concerns, but I don't think this in and of itself would

have been grounds for unwinding an agreement.

Q Do you think it's misleading for the government to

have been interviewing these witnesses and preparing them for

a trial when there's already a signed NPA that resolves the

issue?

2 So, that was part of the judgement that there's a

EFTA00009181



Page 366

1 signed agreement, but based on the course of conduct, is that

2 agreement really an agreement that will be honored? And so

3 there was an ongoing investigation as well, because we didn't |

4 know if we'd go te trial, and I know that -- not I know.

5 My recollection is that the judgement was until we

© know that this agreement is really going to be performed

7 fully, that to inform victims of the possibility of civil

B recovery is problematic, and -- and I can't say that
| 9 Judgement's incorrect. That -- I think that's a valid

10 judgement.

11 Q Fair enough, and then the last questien on this e-

12 mail is at the bottom, Ms. [JIB invites you to attend |

13 interviews with four of the girls who would be coming in the

14 following day.

15 Ab Mm-hmm.
16 Q Did == did you attend?
17 2) I =- I did not, and as U.S. Attorney, I don't think
18 I attended -- that's not -- that wasn't typical for our
19 office.

20 Q Would -- was that ever -- had you ever had that
21 type of request come from a line assistant?

22 A Not to my recollection, but I also tended not to

23 have communications come from line assistants in the first

24 place.

25 Q Were you at all curious, given the =-- you discussed

EFTA00009182


Page 367

the issues with the witnesses in this case --

A Right.

3 Q == that, potential impeachment, and that -- you
4 know, that caused you to -- that went into the negotiation
> phase. Did you have any interest in seeing these pecple --

6 even interacting with them personally so you could make your

7 own assessment?

8 b So, any interest is --

8 Q Would there be value in doing that?

10 A So, we had very experienced prosecutors. It's not
11 just interacting with the -- the -- the victims were in a

12 really hard position. It's not -- how I would draw a

13 distinction between a victim being interviewed by an agent,
14 and how a victim holds up in court, in a public setting under
15 cross examination, and in that, I don't think anyone in the
16 office was questioning the pain or the suffering of the

17 victims. I think that the issues were how would they hold up
18 in court, which are uniquely trial issues.

19 Q Okay. Then let's move onto -- what -- what -- what
20 was your understanding that -- that the federal government

21 was going to do as far as the notification about the

22 resolution of the case?

£3 A So, my understanding was that once we believed that

24 the case was going to be -- that the -- that the plea was

25 going to go forward, that we would notify the victims of the

EFTA00009183


Page 368

1 resolution, and of the agreement, and how -- basically, how
2 it played out.
3 Q How, are you saying now =-- now, you had agreed to
| 4 not notify -- well, did you -- I mean, you're -- one would
5 read your December 12th -- 19th letter as an agreement that
6 the federal government is not going to notify the victims of
7 the state plea. That's -- and that will end that part of the
8 case. Is that correct?
9 A S50, so, I would parse my letter differently, and
10 this is 12 years after the fact, and so this isn't based on
11 recollection, but on my reading and my understanding of the
12 course of conduct in this case, sitting here now,
13 Q Mm-hmm .
14 21 My understanding was that our office was
15 notified -- was it on a Friday afternoon?
16 Q Yes.
17 A That he would be pleading on Monday, and that at
18 that time, [Jl made efforts to notify victims that he would
19 be pleading, and that that would terminate the federal
20 resolution of this matter, and that the victims should attend
21 that hearing, which wasn't the state resolution of the case.
22 It was the federal resolution.
23 Q And so, you -- you're saying that the state plea
24 was also the federal resolution of the case?
25 A Based on my understanding of what happened, that's
ee —_— = — S—

EFTA00009184


Page 369

1 how my recollection -- based on having reviewed the record,

2 that's how I believe it proceeded, although I think bE]
3 attempted to do so, couldn't reach some attorneys, and
4 exercised best efforts to let them know, but did not get

5 ahold of all of the victims --

& Q Let's ==
7 p< -= gover the weekend.
B Q Before we get too deep into that, let's just take a

9 quick look at Exhibit 51. So, this is an e-mail forwarded to
10 you from [Jl £rom January -- June 25th, 2008. So, that is
11 five days prior to the plea in this case.

12 A Yes.

13 Q Or, the state court plea, and the attachment there,

14 you'll notice is a letter with a notification of identified

15  wvictims, and the letter is written, would you disagree --

16 it's written with, on June 30th, Epstein pled guilty. Do you

17 see that?

18 A Yes.

19 Q So, the inference -- it appears to be that this

20 letter was to be sent after the plea.

21 :) I == I see that. I also -- based on my review of
22 the record, where I think I'm recalling the | [I] |]

23 affidavit, where she said that she made an attempt to notify
24 the victims as soon as she was made aware that he would be

25 pleading -- that he would be pleading in state court.

—

EFTA00009185


oo

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q Well, the -- what [NENG says in affidavit --

iy Correct.

Q == I believe is that she made notification, and the
police department -- chief INNES police department made
notifications. Is that -- is that correct? Does that ring a
bell?

A ] ==

ME. TODD: Do you have a copy of the affidavit, so

we can just look at it?

MR. OE De you have IEE -iidavit e-

mail?

MS. I: It's right here. One copy.

THE WITNESS I'll hand it back.

ME. IIE: ~lrost done.

THE WITNESS So, relevant to this paragraph 34, and
then another paragraph, these and other attacks and efforts
to avoid the NPA's terms led the FBI investigative team, the
office, and me te conclude that prosecution at trial remained
a4 possibility, and we should prepare as such.

This meant that the wictim notification letters had
to cease, because one, we no longer knew whether Epstein
would perform under the NBA, and hence, we did not know
whether providing information about the NPA would be
accurate, until we believed that Epstein, through his

counsel, would attempt to use victim notification concerning

Page 370

|

EFTA00009186


eee
Page 371

1 the NPA to suggest that victims had been encouraged by the

2 FBI or the office to overstate the victimization for monetary

3 compensation. And then fast forwarding because you can read

4 it on your own.

On Friday, June 27th at approximately 4:15, I

6 received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement,
7 and learned that Epstein's state court change of plea was

B scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday.

The Palm Beach Police Department and I attempted to
10 notify the victims about the hearing in the short time

11 available to us. I specifically called to Attorney Edwards
12 to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing.

13 I believe it was during this. I never told that
14 the state charges involved other victims, and neither the
15 state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer

16 limited the procurement of prostitution charges to a specific

17 cell.
18 So, that was what I was referring to. Again, I
19 am == I am basing this based on my review of the affidavit

20 and not on recollection of how this may or may not have

21 proceeded 12 years ago.

22 Q Okay. You know, would it surprise you to learn

23 that Ms. [Jl only communicated with Mr. Edwards that

24 day? That's because she was under the direction from a

25 manger to only contact Edwards regarding this -- the

EFTA00009187


—_— -

Page 372
1 potential plea for that Monday?
2 A The affidavit said she attempted to notify the
3 victims, so I can't speak to that.
4 Q Ckay.
5 A And I don't have an independent recollection of
6 this going back 12 years.
7 Q Were you aware that Ms. JJ vas directed to
8 have no communication with the state's attorney's office, and

9 probably during the later period of the case in 2008?
10 A Not to my recollection.

11 Q Okay, so did you have -- would you not recall

12

hearing anyone directing her to not communicate with the

13 state attorney's cffice?

14 A I can't speak 12 years later, what role I may or

15 may not have had. I question how, if we need -- if there is
le a4 —-= an attempt to schedule a plea in all that, how can there
17 not be communication? But I can't -- I can't say whether I

il 18 did or did not. When I say I have no recollection, I mean

19 that in the broadest sense of the word.

20 Q Okay. In your December 19th letter, you -- you did
21 agree that the state attorney's office would notify the

22 state's victims, right?

23 iy Yes.

24 Q And do you have any idea how that was to be

25 accomplished?

EFTA00009188


|

a0

10

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

20

23

24

23

Page 373

L I can't speak to that, no.

Q And would you have any knowledge of who the state
victims are?

B I would infer that -- that our office would have
had sufficient communication with the state attorney's office |
to communicate whe the victims were in this case, because it

was an ongoing =-- it was an ongoing matter, and -- but I

don't know.

Q Do you want to go on?
MS. I Ckay.- Are you -- are you done with
(}
your -- that portion at least, for the moment?

ME. J: Y=s- Thank you.
sv vs.

Q I'd just want to clarify something you said a

moment --

2) Sure.

Q -- ago, Mr. Acosta. You said you referred to the
agreement, the NPA, as having been -- it was signed and was |
being reviewed. Were you talking about Washington?

2) Right.

Q The criminal division, but we established earlier,

did we not, that the NPA was not the subject of the criminal

division review. They expressly declined to review it.

B I stand corrected.

Q Okay. I just wanted to be clear on the record.

EFTA00009189


Page 374
1 Thank you. BSo, we -- we've had a lot of conversation about
| 2 facts. We are fortunate in this case to have a plethora of
3 documents upon which we can rely even 12 years or so after
4 the fact, and we've tried to plum your -- the depths of your
2 memory as to the events.
& Are there any facts -- any conversations, any
7 incidents, anything based on the questions that you've heard
| 8 here today that you recall, have recalled, that you want to
9 tell us about, want us to know?
10 A So, give me a minute to just sort of think this
11 through.
12 Q Of course.
13 pa I think we've covered most of the issues pretty
14 clearly. I guess I would have two general comments. The

15 first is, whether folks agree or disagree with the initial
16 two years, you know, registration and restitution.

17 The office's focus was on having Mr. Epstein go to
18 Jail at a time when, from our perspective, these -- these

159 cases were, at least presented with these facts, federally at
20 least unusual, and that most trafficking cases involved

21 different -- a different sort of nexus.

[ 22 It involved bringing individuals into the country,
23 or holding individuals against their will, or doing something
24 like that, and -- and this will go te my second point which
25 is, you know, sitting here, we now see several high profile

= SS — —

EFTA00009190


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 375

individuals who abused power, and have now been prosecuted --

who were known at the time who abused drugs, like Bill Cosby

and -- who were -- there were rumors at the time, and you
know, and =-- and seo, looking back, maybe it was the right
call.

Maybe it wasn't the right call, but there is some
degree of -- I'm not sure what the right adjective is.
Frustration, that -- and certainly, some of this goes to me,
but I think a lot of this goes to [J and the individuals
involved, that the attempt to put someone in jail as opposed
to decline the case and say this is just a state case,
that -- that the -- that the federal issues are too tricky,
that ultimately, this is sort of novel interpretations, that
the attempt to come up with an outcome has rebounded in the
way that it has, and I'm not -- I'm not saying, look, that
that's life, and I understand that.

But I do think it's important to look back on this,
and try to be in the shoes of the thought process in 2008 and
"07 when trafficking prosecutions were fairly new, when, you
know, more so than today, some jurors may have looked at this
as prostitution, and were -- perhaps more so than today --
judge's tolerance for victim shaming may have both caused
more hesitation on the part of victims, but also created more
issues at trial. And so, I think we've touched on that, but

I think as we sort of wrap up --

EFTA00009191


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

235

Page 376

Q Mm-hmm .

3 -=- this portion of it, it's important to just

restate that.

Q And -- and to -- in addition, are there any facts

that you =-- conversations, or anything that you --
= Fair, you did ask this.

Q == that we have -- that we've not really elicited
from you that you want us to know? And to be clear, you'll
have an opportunity to =--

A Right.

Q == supplement this. [|

A Not that I can think of --

Q All right.

A == sitting here.

Q All right. How do you respond to public criticism
that the defense attorneys -- the Epstein defense team, were
gaining extraordinary access to an influence on prosecutors
from the line level all the way up through the department?

2) So, I would point out early on in the case -- when l
I said early, you pushed back, but from my perspective, early
on in the case. Not when it was first investigated, but when
it first bubbled up for decision.

Q And that would be mid-20077? [

A Mid=-2007. June-ish, May to June 2007, May, June,

July. We determined, here are -- here is what we'd need for

— — |

EFTA00009192


ee — a —

Page 377
1 resclution. And I -- I think I addressed some of this in the
2 Daily Beast's letter.
3 Q Mm ~hmm .
4 A Because we were receiving criticism back then, and

5 I think that letter has been misconstrued to some extent,

& because it was not, oh, here are influential people, we're

7 backing off.

8 It was, we, early on, set three criteria. Two

3 years, registration, restitution. Despite all these

10 attorneys, despite all these appeals, despite all these

11 efforts, the office did not budge with the caveat of the 24
12 to 18 months, which we've discussed, and from my perspective,

13 despite all of that, I backed the office in sticking by that

14 resolution in the various appeals to Washington.

15 And sc ultimately, it was a year-long process, but
16 we ended up a year later exactly where we started with the

17 caveat of the 24 to 18. And so, to the extent that there was

18 influence, there was -- there was no change in position.

19 Q Well, my question was access. That this team of

20 defense attorneys --

21 A Right.

22 Q -- had extraordinary access, that they asked for
23 meetings, they --
24 A Right.

25 0 == pressed for -- with communications, and they had

ee —

EFTA00009193


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

24

25

1

Page 378
that access. Was -- did that seem extraordinary to you?

A So, they asked for a meeting with me before the

agreement was signed.

Q Mm -hmm ,
A I granted that. That's not the first and only time
that I granted a meeting to -- to defense attorneys. I don't

think it's atypical, particularly as a case is coming to --
te resolution -- for a U.S. Attorney to sit down and meet
with opposing counsel, and I can think of several cases where

that happened. There was certainly a lot of access in

Washington. I would speak to =-- you know, I think that's a
question to direct to this building.

Q Mm-hmm .

B Because the process here was lengthy, and
frustrating. But I think we successfully held firm in our
positions, despite all the process in this building.

Q And again, my focus is not on your response, but on

the access.

A And --

Q Based on the prominence and the =-- the prominence

of the defense attorneys. If these had been local attorneys,
your sort of average criminal defense attorney from, you
know, name where they hang out in --

A Right.

Q == Miami coming to you and pressing for this, you,

EFTA00009194


10

11

12

13

14

15

le

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 379
writ large, the department, do you believe they would have

had the same or a comparable level of access?

2 S30 ==
Q I don't know the answer. I'm asking.
1) Yeah. So, I guess I'd respond this way. If an

attorney after meeting with my management staff asked for a
meeting with me, I believe I did and would have granted it,
and I can think of several matters on which those types of
meetings were granted. And so, that was not unusual.

Q All right.

hi: With respect to the back and forth after the
agreement was signed? This was an unusual agreement, and to
some extent, as a result, the back and forth quickly
elevated, particularly because matters would elevate in
particular when they were being addressed at main justice.
That would be one natural way for matters to elevate within
the office. And so, the fact that they were being addressed
and reviewed, and letters were coming here, would naturally
elevate the way the matter was treated in Miami.

Q In particular, Jay Lefkowitz had ready access to --
of course, he was involved in the negotiations with [JJ
directly in creating the NPA, but after that, it appears from
the record that he was often contacting you, and running or

going above the people who worked for you, and on numerous

occasions, you -- again, my characterization -- reprimanded

EFTA00009195



Page 380
1 him, or instructed him not to do that, and to direct his

2 communications to the line attorney or her supervisors. Is

3 that -- is that --

4 A I —-

5 Q -- a fair characterization?

6 A Yes, on == I think on several occasions, I said
1 direct them, and again, that was after the agreement was

8 signed, but ves.

9 Q But there were many issues still pending, correct?
10 A Tes.
11 Q Okay, and that was his ability to reach out to you

12 as a function of your personal association. Is that fair?

13 A So, I don't think that's a fair characterization.
14 I think it -- you could also say that it was the ability
15 of -- a function of his -- his insistence in not doing what

l6 we asked, and the fact that in a typical course, a Miami

17 attorney would not have done this, because they would have to

18 interact with the office on an ongoing basis.
19 Q Mm-hmm .
20 a And so, the repeat litigator behaves very

21 differently than the one time razed earth litigator.

22 Q Mm-hmm. Razed, R-a-z-e-d?
23 2) Correct.
24 Q Is it reasonable to -- for us to understand that

25 you have followed the media coverage of what happened in the

EFTA00009196


|

Page 3B1

1 Epstein case over the years?

2 A Yes.

3 Q In your view overall, and in whatever specific

4 respect you wish to address, is -- has it been accurate or

5 not so?

6 B I think it has been inaccurate in several ways, and
7 we can go through them, but --

8 Q If you could just tick those off?

9 A So, I think it's inaccurate in that it has been

10 characterized as our approving a state plea, and --

11 Q Mm~hmm.
12 2) -- the complexity of this case was a state plea,
13 and we were deferring to -- in favor of a state prosecution

14 has been lost, and it's something that I have attempted to

15 correct, but it's very difficult to sort of explain that in

16 the media.

17 You know, this is a bad analogy, and so I haven't

18 used it in the media, but I've thought about it, and so I'll

19 share it. So, after the Jessie Smollett plea in Chicago,

20 there was some discussion of whether the federal government
21 should bring charges, and I remember the media saying that,
22 and I haven't used this analogy, because I don't want to

23 compare, and I think it would be disrespectful to compare the

24 facts of that case to what happened to these victims, and I

25 still == and I don't want the comparison to be drawn, but

EFTA00009197


— ——
| Page 382

1 there is a legal comparison, right?

2 The U.S. Attorney in Chicago could have stepped in

3 and said, whether or not the state takes this plea, we may |

4 investigate this federally, and sort of stopped that plea

5 from going forward, or at least put a wrench in those gears,
6 or the U.S. Attorney could have pursued that under petite

7 policy, and did not. |
8 And so, our stepping into this sort of reminded me
8 of how many times cases that are viewed as a manifest
10 injustice do occur, and yet the federal government does not

11 step in? And the fact that we stepped in has been construed |
12 as, this became a federal prosecution, and sort of going --
13 going to -- is it I. or =--
14 ° NEE
15 A BE BE sc:t of question earlier, the

16 distinction between -- it was not a manifest injustice versus |

17 this was the right outcome, is something that I think has

18 been lost in the coverage of this matter,

19 I think a second issue that has been lost in the

20 coverage of this matter is, there are references to Prince
21 Andrew, and Alex Dershowitz and Governor Richardson and Bill |
22 Clinton, and thing happening in London, and the so called
23 Lolita Express where things may have happened on airplanes.

24 And so, this is viewed from the public as this international

25 matter, where the victims were local, the actions, to my

EFTA00009198


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

recollection, was local.

Page 383

And so, the distinction between this Palm Beach

incident and what the media likes to cover, which is, you

know, was, you know, did Mr. Epstein force a minor to have

sexual relations with Prince Andrew, is a very different fact
pattern both in terms of the public perception of forcing a

minor to have sex with a third party, that they have -- you

know, that is outside the seclicitation context.

It's sort of == I'm travelling with these women,

and forcing them to have sex, versus a more local matter

that -- I don't want to say solicitation, because I think

we've covered that, but that some may view as that.

Q Mm~hmm .

A And I think those are two major elements ==

Q Right.

B -= that have been lost in the coverage.

Q The case has been criticized as having involved
improper influences, or favors, or payments that affected

decisions that were made within your office, and

of all those --

A Yeah.
Q -=- allegations as well. In connection
case. Were you yourself ever offered any -- any

any favors, or any promises or job assistance or

like that ==

you're aware

with this
payments,

anything

or

EFTA00009199



10

11

12

13

15

le

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

25

Page 384
I: Nao.
Q == in connection with this case?
A No.

Q And to your knowledge, was there any such offer to
anyone associated with this case in your office?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q It's been asserted also that the -- the handling of

the case in the office was affected by Epstein's wealth and

influence in the Palm Beach community. Do you -- what is
your -- what's your response to that criticism?
A Again, my response would be, you know, sometime in

May or June we came up with these three points, and we stuck
to them, and -- and you know, I -- despite all of this, you
know, when people make these assertions, somewhere along the
way, the fact that we stuck to those points is lost and is
not talked about.

And so, we did stick te those points. You know,
and -- and guestioned whether the case would have come to us

in the first place but for -- and so, you know, I think that

could also go the other way.

Q I doen't understand that.

A That it's highly unusual for a case to be brought
to the state -- to the U.S5. Attorney's Office after the state
attorney declined -- not declines, but --

Q Fails to fully prosecute?

EFTA00009200


1 2) Right, and so, so one question that at -- that also
2 doesn't get asked is, you know, to what extent was this case
3 brought to us in the first place because of this, because of |
4 his profile?
l = Q In other words, are you suggesting that his wealth
6 and influence in the community affected the state
7 authorities?
| B A I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is
1°) the case came in, the case proceeded, and someone can make
10 the argument that the only reason that Chief ne brought
11 it to us was because it had such a high profile -- are there
12 other matters that take place in Palm Beach that a state
13 attorney declines in the first place that isn't brought to
14 the state attorney because it doesn't rise to that --
15 Q You mean to the U.S. Attorney. |
| 16 A -- to the -- to the U.5. Attorney because it
17 doesn't rise to that profile.
18 Q All right. All right.
19 BY M5. [:
20 Q Well, in fairness, he might've done it because of
21 the number of victims too, right?
22 = He may have. I don't know. What I'm suggesting is
I 23 we tried to treat it fairly, not looking at, hey, how wealthy
24 is he, but also not saying we need to do this because he is
25 sO wealthy.
IL

Page vos |

EFTA00009201


Le

10

11

12

13

14

15

le

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 386

ov us. EN

Q What do you think about the media's treatment of
the line assistant, [JH

A I think she -- I wish her name wouldn't be in the
media. You know, to some extent, U.S. Attorneys, when they
take the job, realize that part of their job is to take the

slings and arrows.

You know, there are instances when AUSAs were

accused of misconduct, and -- and I always sort of felt that

that was -- I don't want to say below the belt, but that's

not why they take the pay cuts that they take to go into

federal service, and you know, I think the media coverage of

this case has been unfair, and has lost a lot of the
complexities.

It's not surprising, because I mean, here, we're
talking about -- about a lot of those complexities, and it
takes a fairly sophisticated discussion, but I think it's

particularly unfair on [J

Q In your attorney's written response, he used the

term relentless for -- te characterize the team of lawyers --

the defense lawyers, and in that Daily Beast article that
you ==

R Right.

Q == wrote, you referred to the yearlong assault on

the prosecution and the prosecutors, you noted that the

EFTA00009202


14

15

le

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

Page 387

defense was, "More aggressive than any of which I or the
prosecutors in my office had previously encountered.” You
noted that the defense investigated prosecutors and tried to

disqualify two, and I believe that those two are |]

EE oc Ee che: --

A That is correct.

Q All right.

B Yeah.

Q And you also noted, or asserted that there were
investigations into the family lives of individual
prosecutors, accusations of bias and misconduct against
individual prosecutors, and even the threat of a book on
prosecutorial zeal. Do you still regard that
characterization as accurate?

RB I do. You know, whether I would use those same

words now, we can spend a lot of time talking about it, and

I'd want =--

Q All right.

B == to think about, but I do think that's accurate.
I think this really was a razed earth type of matter, and in
the office's typical interactions, the prosecutors know they
have to come back to the office. And so, they would not --

sorry, not the prosecutors. It's getting late, though. The

defense counsel.

And so, they would not -- it's not just the

EFTA00009203



Page 388

1 accusations against the attorneys, but the
2 mischaracterization. I =-- you know, I could go through the |
| 3 record, and there's several instances where my words, or
4 other AUSAs words are being mischaracterized, or where --
5 going back to one of the Jj e-mails, people walk out of the
& meeting believing they have an agreement, and then that's
| 7 unwound, and -- that that is not -- I don't know if that's
g typical in Washington, but that's certainly not typical in
9 the Miami office.
10 Q All right, in that Daily Beast article, I think you
11 also used the term peccadillos.
12 A Yes. |
| 13 o) What did you mean by that in particular?
14 A Could I see the -- could I see the --
15 Q Mm-hmm. I was afraid you'd ask that. I have it
le right in front of me, and I don't at the moment, but --
17 MS. [ll Are vou talking about the to whom it
18 may concern letter?
19 ME. | E Yes.
20 THE WITNESS Yes.
21 BY Ms.
22 Q Yes. Thank you, and it's a reference on the second
23 numbered page of this copy, to personal peccadilles, in the
[2 middle of the page.
25 Fil Also, individual prosecutors and their families
SE

EFTA00009204


Page 389

looking for personal peccadillos that provide a -- so, [JJ

was, to my recollection, she wasn't investigated. | B

I and I haven't encountered that in other cases.
lso looked in |), and

|] family, and his background, and I thought that was a

—

1

id

T

|

|

id

1

1

q

]

oO
-

T
—t
a=

iJ
fu
il

CER EEE SS EE

E EB

=
os

[2]

EFTA00009205


—
—

rage 390

4 BE the point I was trying to convey is, this is

not a -— this is not typical behavior by defense counsel.

§ LER

6 Q Did --

7 A And despite all this, my point was, despite all
2] this, we did not budge.

= Q And again, that's not the focus of --

10 2) Right.

@ oof this question. | [NE

Ee ——

20 Q All right. Are there any other examples where

defense counsel came to you that have not otherwise been

22 addressed with --

13 A I'm ==
24 Q -- allegations about someone --
25 A I'm hesitating --
EE —— om — —_—

EFTA00009206


10

11

13

14

13

16

17

18

13

20

21

22

23

25

Page 391
Q -= glse --
A == Just because I'm trying to think through, and
not to my recollection, no.
Q Did they ever raise or imply that there were --

that there was information regarding you of whatever respect,
that was in the nature of a sort of a threat, or a veiled
warning?

A S50, the book reference was that I might be
personally embarrassed by pursuing this matter, because I
would be the subject of a chapter in a book on prosecutorial

overreach.

Q And who was going to write that book? Do you know?

hy Professor Dershowitz.

Q Mm-hmm. Okay. Did you consider him a professional
friend at all?

A I had not, to my recollection, met him. I =-- I
understand in this letter I sort of grouped him in.

Q Mm~-hmm .

RB But I would -- I'd say for the record that it's
hard to know what my intent was in 2011, but that's for
simplicity of grouping individuals, because I did go to
Harvard.

I may have run into him at Harvard, but he was not
my professor, and I don't -- I didn't work for him as a

teaching assistant. I had some interest in criminal law, so

= — = —

EFTA00009207


Ee EE——

Page 392
1 I may have chatted with him, but -- but that would have been
2 it.
3 Q And did you consult with him at all in connection
4 with your efforts -- your interest in potentially teaching or

5 being involved in the -- sort of the law school world, either

6 at Harvard, or at Florida International, or anywhere elsa?

7 A Not to my recollection. At some point when I
8 applied for the deanship -- I wasn't aware of the deanship
9 until == so, let's -- let's take this -- let's take this in

10 part. I thought about locking at Harvard for a teaching

11 position. To my recollection, I never followed through on

12 that.
13 0 Mm hmm ,
14 A I knew Elena Kagan, and may have had a conversation

15 with her that would have been a preliminary, how does this

16 process work? But I don't recall taking it -- if I tock it
17 that far, and I'm not saying that I did -- this was a long

18 time ago -- I never sort of went through -- the way law

18 schools hire is a very -- they call it the "meat market."

20 Q Mm ~hmm .

21 A Take that for what it's werth. It's something that
22 happens at the hotels here, at the -- at the Marriott here

23 in -- on Connecticut, and it's a very formalized process, and
24 I never --

25 Q Mm~hmm .

ee ——

EFTA00009208



Se _
[ Page 393
1 RB == went through that. I don't recall any
2 conversation with Professor Dershowitz about that. To the
3 extent I was thinking about it, it'd be natural for me to
4 talk to but I don't recall talking to him. With
5 respect to Professor Dershowitz, with respect to FIU, the
B dean process is very decentralized.
| 7 To the extent a faculty member spoke to him, I
8 don't know. To my recollection, and again, this is a long
3 time ago, I did not ask him for a reference or a letter or
10 something to that regard, although I may have. It was a
| 11 long, long time age. I was also no longer active in this
12 case at the time.
13 Q All right, and what about with respect to that same
14 process on your part, Ken Starr, who actually was a dean of a
15 law school at the time? Did -- did he provide you with a
| 16 reference, or --
17 A Not ==
ls Q -= advice?
19 BE Not to my recollection.
20 Q@ All right.
21 Fa) As -- as the letter from -- from Ken at the end,
22 there was some -- by the time this was over, there was some
23 degree of tension between us on my resolution of this matter.
| 24 Q But it also appeared to be tension that both of you
25 were eager to leave aside.
fe __ SIS

EFTA00009209



ee

Page 394
1 pil I'm a big believer, and I had good relationships
2 with the defense bar. I think lawyers can disagree and not

3 be disagreeable, and we would be a better profession if we

4q all learned to do that.

5 Q So would the world.

6 a) Yes.

7 Q There is an -- sort of investigative journalist

8 author named [| SSEEE HEE -

9 A Tes,

10 Q Do you know that name?

11 2) Yes.

12 Q Did you ever speak with her?

13 : S50, she was the recipient of the do -- to whom it

14 may concern letter at the Daily Beast.

15 Q Ch, really?
16 A Yes.
17 Q All right. All right. Thank you. I didn't -- we

18 didn't know that. Did she comment back to you on it?
19 A It was a long time ago. I don't -- I don't recall.

20 Q S50, she wrote a book called trafficking. Have you

21 read that --

22 A She did --
23 Q -=- about this case?
24 A She did. I haven't read it recently, but I read it

25 a while ago.

EEE EE — ee —

EFTA00009210


Page 395
1 Q And she says in that book that you told her a few

2 years after the NPA was signed that as she writes, "He felt

3 incapable of going up against those eight powerful attorneys.

4 He felt his career was at stake." Did you say that to her?

5 :} Not to my recollection, and what I tried to do was,

6 for the record, provide this letter to her, and the purpose

7 of this letter was to say the exact opposite, which is -- and |
| H you know, we have this -- you know, and she and the New York

9 Times, and I think the New York Times called it == what =--

10 what's the word? Like, apologia? Does anyone know what --

l 11 Q Apologia.
12 B Apologia.
13 Q It's a -- it's an -- |
14 A 1 ==

l 15 Q == apology. It's a fancy way of saying --
16 2) Yeah. I
17 Q -- you're =--

I 18 A Yeah.
19 Q == explaining yourself. |
20 2) Yeah. I looked it up, and it's a little more

fl 21 derogatory than explaining yourself, because I felt a need --

22 Q Mm~-hmm .

23 A -- to lock it up, but the New York Times called

| 24 this letter an apologia.

EE |

EFTA00009211

25 Q Mm ~-hmm .



Page 396

1 RB And this was recently, and I say this, because when

2 folks read this letter, they read it as, this is why, you

3 know, we had these -- they -- I think sometimes they |
4 selectively read language. The prosecutors and agents in
5 this case -- and what followed was a yearlong assault. I

& used the word assault as it was more aggressive than anything

7 in which I or the prosecutors in my office had previously
8 encountered.

3 Excuse me. Mr. Epstein hired an army of legal
10 superstars, Harvard Professor Dershowitz, former judge and

11 then Pepperdine lodging Ken Starr, former deputy assistant to

12 the president then Kirkland & Ellis law partner Jay

13 Lefkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors that
14 formerly worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office, the child
15 exploitation section -- I'm not sure who that was -- of the

16 Department of Defense, and they --

17 Q Department of Defense?

18 B No, no, in the child exploitation and obscenity
158 section of the Justice Department. Defense attorneys next
20 requested a meeting with me. And they read that as saying

21 these -- there were all these powerful lawyers in the case,

22 but they don't then go on to talk about, despite this army of

23 attorneys, the office held firm to the terms first presented

24 to Mr. Black in the original meeting.
25 Q Se, is it your -- so, what I understand you saying
-_ — Ee —

EFTA00009212


Page 397

1 is that the panoply, this pantheon of attorneys did not have

2 the influence on you that's alleged?

3 2) And -- and the purpose of this letter was to say,

4 despite all this --

5 Q Right. |
[= BE -=- we held firm. So, how can you say that there's

7 influence if we held firm?

B Q So, the --

9 2) And I would -- I would also -- I'm sorry. |
10 Q Ne, no.

11 B I would also note, and I think we talked about
12 this, that those terms were developed before many of these
13 individuals came on board.

PE, |
15 A So, it's not like these terms were developed

16 because, ch, now these individuals are on board.
17 Q All right. And we haven't, of course, talked about
18 the whole work release issue, but =--
19 A Yeah.

20 Q == I think that speaks =-- the record =--
21 B Yeah.
22 Q -- speaks for itself on that.
23 2) Yeah. |
24 BY M5. |:
25 Q So, I'm not sure I'm clear. Did you have an

— — |

EFTA00009213


Page 398
1 interview, or give a -- have a conversation with Ms. CL]

2 aside -- or, just sent her this letter?
3 Fay I spoke to her briefly saying, I'm not going to
4 speak on the record. I'm not going to address even off the

5 record details of this case, but I will provide a letter to

6 you. I've had a lot of requests over the years to talk about
7 this case.

8 There were enough requests coming that I thought it
9 important to provide a statement to defend the actions of the
10 office. I didn’t want it to be to one reporter in
11 particular, because I did not want to play favorites. And

12 50, I provided a to whom it may concern letter that was a

13 public letter, but then I gave it to her.

14 MS. EEE: 2!) right. Go on?
15 BY M5. HIN:

le Q And just one thing on the work release issue. Did

17 you tell the defense that -- that the U.S. Attorney's Office
18 would not object if he got work release as long as he was

19 treated like every -- like every other defendant?

20 2) So -- so, I don't recall what I may or may not have
21 sald specifically around work release. My recollection of

22 our general position is, you're pleading in state court to

23 incarceration of 18 == it's now 18 months, it was 24.

24 Whether it was 18 or 24, this would have been -- any

25 conversation I would have had would have been after the

ee]

EFTA00009214



Page 399

1 agreement was signed.

2 It's our expectation that he be treated just like

3 everyone else, if -- if it was typical to provide that kind
4 of work release in these cases, that would have been news to

5 me. I certainly would not have expected that, and I think
& based on our subsequent communications with the state

7 attorney's office, that was not what our office envisioned.
8 By the same token, I don't think our office envisioned that

g he be treated worth that the typical offender.

10 Q Well, did you know that [|] was in fact trying to

11 make sure that he didn't get work release?

12 A Yes. And so, I don't see any reason why I would
i
13 have contradicted that, is -- is my point.
14 Q All right. You've mentioned a number of times that

15 the sexual offender registration was the -- one of the three
16 important prongs for you and the office.

17 A Yes,

18 Q What was it that you saw the sex offender

19 registration as accomplishing?

20 2) So, to some extent it's putting the community on

21 notice that, irrespective of whether he's in Florida or

22 elsewhere, he's a registered sex offender. To some extent, I
23 don't know if this is -- but I'll say it anyhow. This was a
24 serious crime, and there is a public sanction associated with

25 this, and I thought to the extent that he committed the types

———————_ ee

EFTA00009215


= ———— ee _ ———— re

Page 400

1 of acts that typically are associated with registration that

| 2 that should go forward, but the primary motivation there was,
3 put the public on notice that he is a registered sex

4 offender.

5 Q And did you see any conflict with that as being a

6 goal with the provision in the NPA that was -- that the NPA

7 was going to be kept confidential, and the communications in

B which the -- in which the U.S. Attorney's Office was having

9 with the defense about continuing to keep things

10 confidential? Do you see any inconsistency between those

11 two?

12 A No, in that I -- I genuinely was of the opinion

13 that this NPA would go public, and certainly his public --
14 his state court plea would be public, and his registration
15 would be public. And so, it would -- what he did would be
16 known.

17 Q And given what you know about these office's back
18 and forth on notifying the victims, do you think, locking at

1% the entire course of conduct of the office, that the victims

20 were treated fairly, and with dignity and respect?
21 I So, I want to be careful, not because I'm fudging,
22 but because it's a complex question. If, looking back in

23 hindsight, we knew that there would be a -- what was it? Two

24 elght months period, when -- do we have an agreement, do we

25 not have agreement, is this concluded, is this not concluded?

EFTA00009216


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 401

Is this an ongoing investigation?

How do we deal with all these notification issues?

If we had foreseen all of that, I think I've said before,
that -- that something I certainly think should have been
considered, and it's very possible we would have done
something very different.

But that was not foreseen. And so, it's then a

very difficult judgement to be made, because there is an

agreement. There is concern as to if we have to go to trial,

how do you address this?

There is, you know, going to the | [1] ]
affidavit, at least one instance -- and I'm merging my
recollection here, and -- and my knowledge after the fact,

because your question sort of calls for an after the fact

assessment.

So, you've got the |] 2ffidavit, which
points out that defense counsel did all they could, but is
using this to impeach and weaken witness credibility in a
case where there's already questions around witness
credibility.

And so, it's a very imperfect situation with
discretionary judgements to -- to do the best, to sort of

palance all these factors. Is that the best outcome?

Probably not, but that's where the -- that's where we were,

and that's why I think this case would have been very

EFTA00009217


10

11

12

13

14

15

lg

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

= ———e————— ee

Page 402
differently if -- what was it, October 24 --
Q Mem = hmm .
A == he would have gone in and plead and taken his

time and served his time like so many other people have done
as opposed to mount all these legal challenges that we then
had to work through.

Q And I'll preface my question with the =-- with the

fact that we're still investigating this. We've made no

conclusions --

b Mrmo-hmm.

Q -- with respect to this, but if OPR determines that
your office should be criticized for its handling of this --

B Right.

Q -- matter, does that criticism fall on you, or does
it fall on your senior managers? Because as a non-
prosecutor, you were relying on them to keep you informed,
and for their judgement.

BR So, I was the U.S. Attorney. I certainly relied on

my staff, but ultimately, I was the U.S. Attorney, and I
doen't think it's justifiable or fair to sort of say this was
on them. I was sufficiently aware of matters that -- that --
it was my office, and -- and while I'll say that I was -- I
might not recall this, or I was relying on A, B, or C for
guidance, or to handle this matter, ultimately, I think those

judgements always sort of bubble up.

EFTA00009218


10

11

12

13

17

18

13

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 403

sv vs.

Q In your press conference, you reference -- this is
the == I think July 10, 2019 press conference. You

referenced victims, what they went through was --

A Mm- hmm.

Q == horrific, you said, and then you said, I've seen

these videos. I've seen the interviews. I have seen the
interviews on television of these victims, and their stories.
Just to be clear, are you talking about interviews and

television coverage and videos recently, or back in 2006

and --

2) Recently.

Q == 2007? Okay. I just wanted to be very clear
about that. The U.S. Attorney's manual requires us all in
the department to conduct the fair, even handed
administration of the federal criminal laws. What's your
view as to how the handling of this case comported with that
principle?

A So, I do think it was fair, and even handed. We --
you knew, after the fact, may look back and say that two year
may not have -- you know, it shouldn't have been a manifest
injustice standard. It should have been, you know, a sort of
a de novo, let's treat this as a new prosecution.

That's a judgement you'll all make, but -- but

those judgements were made with an eye toward fairness and

EFTA00009219


wor

10

11

12

13

14

15

lg

17

21

22

23

24

25

Page 404

impartiality, and once those judgements were made, despite

all the attorneys involved, and despite all the litigation,

and all the -- all the stuff, all the appeals to Washington
and the -- you know, we stuck to that position.

Q Mm=hmm .

A And I think that speaks to the way the office

approached this matter.

Q All right. We -- I -- we spoke sort of offline
earlier about an issue that was raised in that press
conference that was not clearly answered on your part in that
context, and the question was -- and this is on page 15 of
the internet transcript of --

A Right.

Q == that press conference. You were asked whether
You were ever made aware that Mr. Epstein was "an
intelligence asset of some sort." And you -- you in your
response you said you couldn't answer it -- couldn't address
it directly because of guidelines. Can you clarify -- first

of all, were you ever made aware of that --

2) If he was --
Q -= assertion?
p= -= I'm not aware of it.

Q Rll right. Did defense counsel ever say to you
that Epstein had that status?

B Not to my recollection.

EFTA00009220



————ee———

Page 405
1 Q All right.
2 Fa) And -- and to clarify, I alsc don't know where
3 press reports from multiple sources -- not from multiple
4 sources, but from multiple media outlets that I told somecne
= that he was an intelligence asset.
6 I do not know where that came from. If -- if I can
7 just -- so, there are questions that I may be asked publicly,

8 that I don't think it's right for me to comment as to what

9 classified information I may or may not know, because that's

10 not the kind of stuff you'd go into, but the answer is no,

11 and no.

12 Q All right. Without reservation, without any --
13 B No, and no.
14 Q All right. Excellent. Thank you. A couple of

15 final questions. As you can tell --

16 A Can I -- can I --
17 Q Yes.
18 2 —-- address as second issue that has come up at

19 times?

20 Q Yes. |
21 A There are also media reports that this was because

22 of cooperation in some financial --

23 Q Mm =hmm .
24 A -- financial matters. I don't know where that may
25 have == I don't know where that may have come from.

EE S———

EFTA00009221


Page 406

1 Q All right. Thank you, and we are familiar with

2 that, what you're referring to.

3 A Was -- was there cooperation related to financial

4 matters?

2 Q We didn't ask you about it.

6 A Okay.
7 Q As you can tell, OPR obtained many electronic

8 records --

9 A Yeah.

10 Q == mainly e-mails, but other electronic holdings

11 from the department. The Department of Justice, however, has
12 not been able to find/recover a portion of your e-mail
13 account as U.S. Attorney that contained e-mails received by

14 you between May 26th, 2007, and March 2008.

| EE A Correct,
16 Q A period of time rather relevant to this. We have
17

obtained many records of course from senders and from other
18 pecple copied. So, we have many of the records, but the fact
19 is, that's a --

20 A Mm-~hmm

21 Q == gap in the holdings, and this is despite the

22 fact that as you no doubt know, the law requires that U.S.

23 Attorney records be maintained and archived --

24 ba) Right.

25 Q == indefinitely. Can you give us any insight, any

EFTA00009222


uo

10

11

12

13

14

15

le

17

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 407

idea why that might be the case?

2) I can't, and my recollection was after -- after

several issues that took place, the department had some sort

of records retention software that automatically retained

these e-mails. Is that not accurate?

Q There was a -- there was a switchover from --
A Right.
Q -— a period in which that record retention

responsibility resided with each U.S. Attorney's Office, and
at the switchover, it became centralized.

A Right.

Q And this appears to have sort of gotten lost in

the --

A Been caught in the switchover. I -- my

recollection is that there was some automatic retention

mechanism --

Q Okay.

A -- and I can't address that, although there's
certainly a fulsome -- a fulsome record.

Q But just to ask the inevitable question --

n Right.

Q -- did you take any action to discard, destroy, or
dispense with any official records --

A Not --

Q -= related to this matter?

EFTA00009223


Page 408

1 A Not to my recollection. I think there's a fulsome
2 record, and not to my recollection.
3 Q All right, and is there any particular gap that

4 you've discerned in the records that we've provided to you?
3 B Not that I recall. Do you have the e-mails that I

6 sent, out of curiosity?

7 Q We do.

8 pil Okay. So, you have the sent, but not received.

9 Q Yes,

10 A Just checking.

11 Q And likewise, we retrieved from the federal records

12 center --

13 A Right.

14 Q -= records that were boxed up and sent there, hard
15 copy documents, after your term ended, and there is nothing
16 that relates to the Epstein case. There were records that

17 were maintained that were kept in the main office =--

18 BE Right.
19 Q -=- after you left, because it was an ongoing
20 matter, but it -- do you have any idea why there are not any

21 in the records of yours --

22 BE Sg ==
£3 Q == that were sent?
24 pi) So, I have a recollection that when I left, there

25 were some binders that I passed along to [i]. because it was

= ee

EFTA00009224


Page 409

1 an ongoing case, and we sort of had binders out that sort of

2 had correspondence back and forth.

3 Q All right, and you've already made -- we've --

4 we == I asked you about facts, but you addressed a sort of a
5 broader statement te us for the record about the case. Is

& there anything else you want to tell us at this point?

7 12) Give me a second to =--

B Q Sure.

9 a == sort of think this through.

10 Q In fact, if you'd like to take a quick break and

11 talk to your attorney, and that will be the last question.

12 2) Do we need a break?

13 ME. |: ve.

14 Ms. I: Your attorney says god no.

15 THE WITNESS I will -- I will follow up on this.
16 Ms. EE: :)) riont.

17 THE WITNESS Nothing that I -- if something comes

18 up, my understanding is that we're receive the transcript,

19 and have enough time given the length of this to review and

20 comment .

21 sv ws.

22 Q Exactly, yes, and for the record --
23 a Right.
24 Q -= when the transcript is prepared, which should be

25 within a couple of weeks, we'll ship that off to your

EFTA00009225


Page 410
1 attorney.
2 ray Mm~hmm .
3 Q We'll ask you to review it, to make not only any
4 corrections, but alse clarifications, and to add te it --
5 A Mm~hmm. |
& Q == if you feel having read something that it needs
7 to be clarified or expanded upon, you're invited to do so.
8 A And if I could ask one -- one other question. Is
9 there -- and I'm not familiar enough with the way OPR
10 operates, and this may be suigeneris, so you may not be
11 prepared to answer, if there is a report as opposed to a l
12 letter, which is what I typically am familiar with, will that
13 report be shared in advance for comment?
14 Q I am going to --
15 R Or is that to be determined?
16 M5. I: I am going to defer to Ms. IEE
17 for that.
18 MS. Jl} That's a question that doesn't need to
19 be on the record. Do you have anything else that you'd want
20 to put on the record before we close out?
21 THE WITNESS: I do not.
| 22 Ms. I: 211 right.
23 M5. J: ~!! right. Thank you. I want to
24 extend our great appreciation for your willingness --
25 THE WITNESS No problem.
—

— —_—e—— ee —

EFTA00009226


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

25

case.

Page 411
MS. JBBBB.: -- to come in and help us with this
THE WITNESS So, so, let me -- now that we're off

the record, let me say --

MS. F Are we off the record?

THE REPORTER: Not yet.
THE WITNESS Not yet? Oh.
Ms. HENNE: vo?

THE REPORTER: You didn't say it.

MS. I: 211 right. That's it. We're

the record.

(Whereupon, at 8:38 p.m. the interview of R.

Alexander Acosta was concluded.)

EFTA00009227


Page 412

CERTIFICATE

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |

I, Beth Roots, Notary Public, before whom the foregoing
deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness
whose testimony appears in the foregoing pages was duly sworn
by me; that the testimony of said witness was reported by me
by electronic record, and thereafter reduced to typewritten
form; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony
given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related
to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which
this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a
relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by
the parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested

in the outcome of this action.

Beth Roots
Notary Public in and for the

District of Columbia

My commission expires:

April 30, 2020

EFTA00009228
