Page 1
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

INTERVIEW OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA

Washington, D.C.

Friday, October 18, 2019

Interview of:

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
a witness of lawful age, taken on behalf of the United States
Department of Justice in the above-entitled action, before
Beth Roots, Notary Public in and for the District of
Columbia, in the offices of the U.S. Department of Justice,

3950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., commencing at 9:34 a.m.

Diversified Reporting Services, Inc.

EFTA00009229



Page 2
APPEARANCES:

On Behalf of the Department of Justice:

Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

On Behalf of the Witness:
GORDON D. TODD, ESQ.
T.J. HERRON, ESO

I Sidley Austin LLP

1501 K Street Northwest |

Washington, D.C. 20005

EFTA00009230


10

11

12

13

14

13

16

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 3

PROCEEDINGS
Whereupon,
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA

was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn,

was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION
BY Ms. [EG :
Q So, would you tell us your name, please?
Fa) Rene Alexander Acosta.

Q And Mr. Acosta, you're accompanied by your
attorney, Gordon Todd, is that correct?

A Yes, 1t 1is.

Q And Mr. Todd, would you identify the associate you
have with you?

MR. HERRON: Yes, T.J. Herron.

Ms. I: H-o-r-r-o-n?

MR. HERRON: Correct.

MS. RB Thank you. Mr. Acosta, 1m (EE
BE. or = counsel with the Office of Professional
Responsibility here at the Department of Justice, and with me
are my fellow OPR counsel, I  } and I
BEE. Vc are in a conference room at the Department of
Justice malin building on today, October 18, 2019, and we're
starting at about 9:30 in the morning. Before we start, I'd

just want to put on the record that Mr. I worked in

EFTA00009231



Page 4
1 the Civil Rights Division at the time that you were the AAG

2 heading that division, and I believe had an occasion to

3 briefly meet you in connection with a matter.

| THE WITNESS: Could I ask what section?

ME. : I vas in the special litigation

en

& section.

7 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
8 ME. : And I provided Mr. Acosta some
8 talking points for a press situation that we had in that |
10 case,
11 THE WITNESS: 14141.
12 MR. IT Yes,
13 THE WITNESS: Probably.
14 BY M5. HE:
15 Q All right. Thank you. Mr. Acosta, OPR is
16 investigating two things. As you know, one, whether one or

17 more federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida
18 U.S. Attorney's Office may have committed professional
19 misconduct by entering into the non-prosecution agreement, or

20 NPA, in 2007 with Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was under

21 investigation by that office, and the FBI, for engaging in
| 22 widespread sexual misconduct involving underage females.
23 The second thing we're investigating is Judge

24 Marra's finding of February of this year, 2019, that the

25 government may have violated -- or, actually, he found the

EFTA00009232


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

Page 5
government did violate the CVRA, or Crime Victims’ Rights Act

when it entered into the MPA without first providing the
victims with notice and a reasonable right to confer with the
government.

You are a subject of the OPR investigation, that
is, one of -- somebody whose conduct is being reviewed and
evaluated by OPR, and specifically as U.S. Attorney at the
time for the Southern District of Florida, you had the
ultimate authority over the Epstein for a period of two and a

half years, as we understand it, from the time the line AUSA

ne I] first briefed you and then criminal chief
IE Bl in July of 2006, and until you were formally

recused from the case on or about the 8th of December, 2008,
after notifying the executive office of the U.S. Attorneys
that you were seeking employment with Kirkland & Ellis, a
firm of which two attorneys, Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz had
been representing Jeffrey Epstein. Is that correct?

A We may -- we may get into it a little bit later,
but I think the characterization of my seeking employment is
not accurate, we can talk about that a little bit later.

Q All right. We have the documents that relate to
that. So, that's what we're -- we're basing it on.

2 Correct.

Q And I believe the term that's used is seeking

employment.

[|

EFTA00009233


[p81]

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

20

21

22

24

25

—_— = aa
Page ©
A That =-=- that is the term used in the e-mail. I
think I addressed that in my -- I believe Mr. Todd addressed

that in the letter that was sent to --
Q All right.

20 == QPR.

Q All right. Thank you. So, we recognize that
you're not longer with the Department of Justice --

A Right.

Q -- and that it is your choice to come and talk to
us, and we very much appreciate your willingness to
voluntarily do so and help us figure this case out. OPR
provided you with a few thousand pages of records, e-mails,
and correspondence and some other documents that reflect your
involvement in the Epstein matter over that two and a half
year period.

How that you've had a chance to review, I hope,
those e-mails and other documents, we hope you can be
specific in helping us understand what happened. Have you in
fact been able to review those documents?

2 Yes, I have.

Q Thank you. OPR asked you for a written response to
certain questions, and we've received and reviewed a written
response prepared and submitted not by you, but by your

attorney, Mr. Todd, on your behalf. Have you reviewed his

rasponsa to --

EFTA00009234


Page 7
1 A Yes,
2 Q == you?
3 :} Yes, I have.
4 Q And will you now under cath subscribe to that

5 response as if you had submitted to it yourself?

& R So, Mr. Todd spoke to me and conveyed the
| 7 investigation that I provide him. I believe he conveyed that

a information accurately, and the statements that he ascribes

9 to me in that letter I believe are accurate.

10 Q All right. Do you have any changes or corrections
| 11 te that written response?

12 A No, I do not.

13 0

Is there anything in it that you do not agree with?

14 B Again, I think that the statements that he ascribes

15 to me are accurate, and I agree with them.

16 Q All right. So, we are going to accept that

17 statement as representing accurately your -- what you would

18 have responded if you had responded to us directly. Is that

159 correct?

| 20 :) I -- yes, the statements, he basically gives my
21 positions, and I believe that he gave my positions

22 accurately.

23 Q Perfect. Thank you. So, as we ask questions and

24 refer to documents, we would like you to correct any

25 misstatements in our questions, or any misstatements or

EFTA00009235


10

11

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 8

errors that are in the documents themselves, because we want
to make sure the entire record --

B Mm- hmm .

Q -=- is correct. Also, there's been an enormous
amount of publicity about the Epstein case, particularly this
year, including about the events and decisions made back in
2006 to 2010 that are the subject of cur investigation. And
so as best you can, we ask you to try to answer today from
your knowledge, understanding, and recollections as of that
pericd of time. However, to the extent you are asked or do
speak retroactively, retrospectively, we'll just make it
clear that you're doing so.

A All right.

2 Okay?
:) And if I could just say, one of the difficulties is
with everything that -- all the publicity and all the

documents that have made it to the press and in litigation
distinguishing between recollection versus after the fact --

Q Right.

23 -- speculation, and I will try, but I would
appreciate reminders along the way, because it's, it's an
important distinction, but it's kind of hard sometimes.

Q We recognize particularly the importance of it.

A Right.

Q That's -- that's precisely the heart of --

EFTA00009236


10
11
| +
13
14
15
16
17
18

| 19

20

21
22
fl 23
24

25

LL

Page 9

i} Yeah.

Q == our matter. So, Mr. Acosta, your professional
background is a matter of public record. I have a couple of
questions. By what state bar are you currently licensed?

R So, I am inactive in == I believe inactive in
Pennsylvania and also in D.C.

Q All right, and not in Florida?

A Not in Florida.

Q So, are -- is it -- do I understand that you are
not currently an active member of any bar?

A I would have to confirm with D.C. I said not
inactive in Pennsylvania and in D.C. because I am not certain
whether I'm currently active or inactive in D.C. I am not
currently practicing, and so I would have renewed under
either active or inactive.

Q All right.

A And we can --

Q We --

2) We can =--

Q He --

A We can verify that and get that.

Q We would appreciate it if Mr. Todd could let us
know your current status. I also would like te know the

status -- your bar status in the period of 2006 threugh 2008.

Do you know what that was?

EFTA00009237


en

10

11

12

13

16

17

18

13

21

22

23

23

Page 10

Fa) Most likely -- I can -- I can speculate. I don't
know as a fact. Mostly likely active in D.C.

Q Mm-hmm .

B And inactive in Pennsylvania.

Q Okay, but likely active somewhere, correct?
2) Yes. Yes, I think that's a requirement.

Q Yes, that is a =--

A And so --

Q -- requirement.

A So, it would be D.C., the distinction between
active and inactive in D.C. is more minor, as I recall, than
Pennsylvania where there's a large fee difference.

Q All right, thank you, and we lock forward to
hearing confirmation of that from you, Mr. Todd. So, after
serving nearly two years as the assistant attorney general in
charge of the department's civil rights division, you were
presidentially appointed the interim U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Florida in June of 2005, and then as we
understand it, you were formally nominated as U.S. Attorney
in June of 2006, and after being confirmed by the United
States Senate, you were sworn in by the U.S. Attorney -- as
U.S. Attorney in late October 2006.

A I think that may be inaccurate. I would have to
confirm. When you say presidentially appointed, I believe it

may have been appointed by the chief judge at the reguest of

EFTA00009238



11

Page
1 the Attorney General. The chief judge has appointing
2 authority.
3 Q Okay.
4 A And you'd have to go back and confirm whether it
5 was either an AG designation or the chief judge --
3 Q All right.
7 A == which is different than presidential.
8 Q And I understand, and again, I would appreciate if
9 you could =--
10 A Yeah.
11 Q -- follow up on that ==
13 0 -- Mr. Todd.
14 2) -- not certain how to confirm that. That's
13 something that in all candor the department would know --
16 Q All right.
17 B -=- much better than I. |
18 Q Then we will pursue it. My point is that there was
1% a change in your status from interim to -- you -- the U.S.
20 Attorney with the -- with the full --
21 A Correct.
22 Q -- confirmation. How if at all did that change in |
23 status affect your view of and your exercise of your
24 authority as U.S. Attorney?
25 A So, it's difficult to recall. You're now asking
J —_— ]

EFTA00009239


—

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12

that just ten years back, but even further back. I was
interim for a sufficiently long period of time that -- that
by the time the change in status took place, I would
speculate that I was, in my mind, the, you know, acting as
U.S. Attorney whether you have an adjunctive interim, or
acting in front of your name or not.

You know, I == I had great people. I don't recal
when -- when ] came on board as first assistant, but he
was my crim chief, and I thought for the continuity of the

office it was important to promote him te first assistant,

and --

Q He was promoted actually effective October of 200
You made a series -- according to e-mails -- the
announcement -- the personnel announcement was made to be

effective in October 2006 naming [|| HII 2: criminal

chief, and |] |] as first --

B Right.
Q == assistant.
A Right, and they -- they were both long serving

professionals within the office, and basically, as my
recollection, everyone just moved up one wrung.

Q Okay.

2) You would knew better than I, because you have
those records. And so, sitting here today, I don't recall

any specific way in which that shift would have impacted --

1

EFTA00009240


[Tw] a0

10

11

12

15

16

17

20

21

22

24

25

Page 13
Q All right.

Rh == my thinking.
Q You had not served as a -- as a prosecutor before,

and had == didn't have direct criminal experience is my

understanding.

B The -- that is correct. I had supervised -- civil
rights, for example, had supervised criminal prosecutions,

but I had not been a line prosecutor previously.

Q So, as the U.S. Attorney supervising a couple of

hundred --

. Right.

Q == line prosecutors, most involved in criminal
work, how =-- what -- what -- what interested you most, or

appealed to you most as you undertook your -- and carried out
your duties as U.S. Attorney?

2) What interested me and appealed to me. So, the
work of the office, I mean, the -- it's a broad question, but
the work of =--

Q Mm~-hmm .

FY == that office and any U.S. Attorney's Office I
think is incredibly impactful to any local community, and I
very much enjoyed being a part of the effort to bring folks
to justice, to move policy initiatives. You know, I recall
early on, we identified healthcare fraud --

Q Mm hmm .

EFTA00009241



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

EFTA00009242


n-

10

11

12

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 15

R -= those are never fun.

Q Mm-hmm. So, we talked about the personnel -- high |
level personnel changes you made sort of after your first
year there. [lf Hl 12d. we understand, been functioning
de facto as a first assistant while Hl nin was not.

He -- we understand IHREN had been first assistant, but
he stepped away, and il] HEB came in to essentially take
over his brief until he was formerly appointed first
assistant. Is that consistent with your memory?

Rn So, you might have characterized that more strongly
that I would have. |

Q Okay.

1 Again, it's difficult to recreate from back then,
but there was certainly a transition period from Mr.
HE cc vi: IB: nd if I could, because when you
said high level changes, my intent -- it was a great office.
Great professionals. My intent in elevating Mr. [11] ] was |
just you go from criminal chief to first assistant, and I

don't recall Mr. rior position, but I know that he
= =

was also elevated. I think he might have been major crimes,

but --
Q That's correct.
A == I'd be -- I'd be speculating.
Q We can --
B I could guess it.

SS —|

EFTA00009243


Page 16
1 Q We can verify that.
2 A Okay.
3 Q Yes. What was your assessment of | I - His
d capabilities, his judgement, and his working relationship

| 5 with you on a day to day basis?

© B Outstanding. He had been in the office for

7 decades. He was respected by everyone. He had a good tone
8 to him. He was someone, you know, I wanted individuals

g around me that were respected within the office and that were

10 trusted and that had been there for a long time, and then I

11 think I was very lucky to -- to have that in my management
12 team.
13 Q As we understand it, your cffice as U.S. Attorney
14 was sort of on one side of the reception area, and the first
15 assistant's office is on the other side. Is that correct?
| le A That is correct.
17 Q Or, at the time --
18 A Correct.
19 Q -=- that was correct. So, did you and I I
20 have a sort of easy back and forth --
[ 22 A Walking --
22 Q -- open door?
23 Ln == into each other's offices multiple times a
24 day --
25 Q All right.

EFTA00009244


13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

——— —]

Page 17

2} == kind of relationship.

Q All right, and given that he had had experience
throughout his career at the department in the criminal arena I
and you had not, to what extent would you rely on him, ameng
others, for guidance, perspective, information, and so on?

A I named him first assistant because I valued his

guidance and his perspectives and I thought those were |

valuable.

Q Okay. You also, as we pointed out, appointed I
BE tc succeed lll BE 2: criminal chief effective

October of 2006, and he served for about ten months before he

left for private practice. He left at the beginning of
August =--

2 Mm—hrmm.

Q == 2007. What -- you =-- you did -- you said you

didn't recall, as we sit here today, what section he'd come

from.

A Right. I guessed it was major crimes.

Q All right. Were you -- what was your assessment of
I

A Outstanding as well, and if I could say, when I say

I don't recall but I guess, when you're going back 12 years,

sometimes you get an impression but you can't say it's a

recollection, and that's going to come up multiple times

today, just because it's a while ago.

EFTA00009245


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

15

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 18

Q As long as we make that distinction --

RB Right.

Q == both are helpful.

A Right, and so -- so, whether it's a recollection or
a construction after the fact, I can't -- I can't say, but
you know, I -- I thought that one of the helpful factors with
Bl is he had spent a lot of time -- and major crimes is the
most active -- active unit. I assume you all know the
structures of the office --

Q Mm-hmm .

A -=- but major crimes is not major crimes, it's sort

of the entry level crimes, and I valued the fact that he had
trained and, you know, so many AUSAs, and really spent a lot
of time reviewing -- the major crimes chief as opposed to the
other chiefs spends a lot of time reviewing the work of

AUSAs, and so, he would be someone who is very experienced

and able to get in the weeds.
Q And he in fact was around -- during that time
period, had gone back in the courtroom, if you recall, to

actually try a major case. Do you recall that? It was a --

A I didn't until you --
Q -- major fraud case.
A -=- mentioned -- I didn't until you mentioned it,

and now there's something in the back of my head that's

saying that sounds right, but I can't give you more detail.

_ |

EFTA00009246


10

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 19
Q All right. What was your assessment of |

IB sort of working style, and particularly working

with you?
2) You know, again, positive. You know, we didn't --

I didn't see him as often as Mr.  } but =--

Q He -- was he located on the same floor?

A He was located on the same floor, but not within
the same suite.

Q Mm-hmm .

A And -- and that -- that affects interaction, but a

positive working relationship.
Q All right, and how -- how -- to what extent would
you, as criminal chief, was he relied on by you as

distinguished from [ij J vith regard to the criminal

matters pending?

A Also relied on. Depend -- that would depend almost
on the matter for --

Q Okay.

A == as 1n a typical situation, he would bring things
to lL who would them bring them to me along, and so he
would bring things to B and then depending on their
discussion, they might both walk inte my office. But he
would typically run things through [ij before coming to me.

Q Were there occasions when he would come to you

directly?

EFTA00009247



[ed

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

Page 20
B Sure. That's why I said in a typical --
Q Okay.
B It's difficult to sort of recreate the

interactions, but he certainly could come to me directly, and
in some cases, I would say probably would.
Q Again, it being a large office with several

physical locations, and we understand it, a very high

volume =--

A Mm - hmm .

Q -- of cases --
A Right.
Q == and particularly in the criminal context, is it

fair to say you didn't review every prosecution as it was
brought?

B It -=- it is not just fair, but accurate. I recall
a conversation with a U.S. Attorney from a small district
early on at one U.S. Attorney's conference where we compared
notes, and the interaction cof an office with 30 prosecutors
is very different than one with =-

Q Mm-hmm .

A == a few hundred prosecutors.
Q So, when you did engage on a -- on a criminal case,
would you -- whether it was a planned prosecution or a case

heading te trial, would you generally rely on written

submissions, or would you -- this is really an --

EFTA00009248


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

Q

together, and talk about it, or would you rely on your most

immediate subordinates to be briefing you? How -- which one
of those --

2) SQ ==

Q --= kinds of --

A S50 ==

Q == approaches --

A So --

Q -- did you take?

RB I would say that really depended, and probably
varied based on -- on individual needs. For the most part, I

would most likely just speak with my first assistant and/or

criminal c

Q

Mm~-hmm.
== inquiry into --
Right.

== your style, or would you

hief, and assess what else needed to be done.

In other words, you would sort of do it on a --

Page 21

have everybody

sort of on a verbal, or based on oral --

A
Q
A
Q
of papers?

29

Correct.

== interaction and --

Correct.

== presentation as opposed to going through stacks

For -- for the =-- I would say that was typical.

EFTA00009249


_ M— S—

Page 22
1 Q Yeah.
2 B I don't want to say that was the case every single
3 time, but that was -- was typical.

Q All right, and to what extent did you go out and
J about to encounter the line attorneys, or example? Was that

6 something that you were able to do and wanted to do?

| 7 A Yes, and yes, and you know, I -- when I started, I
B made it a point of walking every floor and meeting everyone, I
9 and in -- toward the end of the day, I would also if I could
10 make it a point -- particularly of major crimes of just

11 walking down to the floor and seeing who was there and what
| 12 they were doing and -- and sort of popping my head in and |
13 just saying hi because I think it's the right thing to do.

14 Q Okay. Okay. Was that a way to support the troops,

15 or was it more a way for you to find -- to become informed

| 16 about what was going on?
17 A Probably a little of both, of support the troops, I
18 but also get the temperature for the office, see how matters
19 are progressing.

20 Q You at the criminal -- or, rather, the civil rights

21 division, had experience with human trafficking and child sex

22 trafficking cases =--

23 B Correct.

I 24 Q == under your supervision. We understand that you

£3 brought that concern, or your concern about those issues with

- _ |

EFTA00009250



10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

lB

19

21

22

23

24

25

Page 23
you to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that -- we know that

under your tenure, the U.S. Attorney's Office had many
successful prosecutions involving conduct ranging from
internet child pornography --

A Mm-hmm.

Q -- to international sex tourism --
A Correct.
Q == victimizing children in particular. In mid-

2007, you -- according to press reports, you set up a new
special prosecutions unit --

a Correct.

Q -- to focus on, among other things, sex crimes
against children. Could you tell us what importance those
kinds of cases held for you as U.S. Attorney?

BL Sure, If I could -- if I could just back up a
little bit, because the -- the question goes =-- the special
prosecutions unit, and let me address that part eof it. There
are a few things embedded in that.

Q Mm-hmm .

FY There's -- there's -- the special prosecutions unit
was set up because there were some issues that =-- that I
thought were important to pursue in particular, and one of
those was -- was sort of the trafficking issues. Another one
was the gun violence, and the intent of special prosecutions

was to have a group of individuals that would sort of be

EE _

EFTA00009251


12

13

14

15

17

18

1%

20

22

23

24

23

Page 24

dedicated and not part of the usual major crimes group. So,

it wasn't exclusively -- I -- your question may have implied

1t was exclusively for sex crimes, and it --

Q Oh, no.

A -- and it wasn't -- yeah.

Q No, I understand it was not.

A Right.

Q Okay.

A And so, I thought it was sufficiently important,
and so, it was one of the -- one of the initiatives that we

were certainly pursuing.
Q And was that something that you can -- that -- to

which you brought your experience as head of the civil rights

division as well?

A It was. I think -- not I think I know when I was
head of civil rights that that's something that I'd put
particular emphasis on, and I thought civil rights really
stepped up and did a great job on that.

Q Did you yourself ever -- I recognize you were never

a prosecutor as such.

A Right.

Q But did you ever have experience being involved in |
a prosecution that -- sort of the nitty-gritty of the
prosecution of that kind of case? Sort of seconding yourself

to a trial team, for example, or an investigation?

EFTA00009252


a

11

12

13

16

17

18

20

21

22

24

25

Page 25

A So, if by nitty-gritty you mean seconding myself to

a trial team the answer would be no.

Q All right.

A There are a number of cases that I recall being
briefed on and talking about, but --

Q But at that high level?

A Correct.

Q All right. The department set up in 2006 a PSC

program, a Project Safe Childhood program --

A Correct.

Q -- focused on internet child pornography, and you
appointed I I as your first PSC --

Bn Correct.

Q == coordinator, and she was also of course the line

attorney on the Epstein case. How well did you know ne
I and can you -- can you give us your assessment of
her capabilities, judgement, and her interaction with you?

B So, a few things in there. How well did I know her
prior to appointment? I don't recall. I'm not == I don't
think I knew her particularly well prior to appointment. She
was clearly respected within the office, and I don't recall
but I can speculate that she was appointed based on
recommendations of management, and her interest and some

combination -- and prior work and some combination thereof.

You asked me to characterize I —

EFTA00009253


]

Lo

15

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 26

Her -- your view of --

Right.

== her capabilities, her judgement =--
Right.

== her acumen, her knowledge of the law.

I think she was a good, strong, professional AUSA.

I mean ==

Q

know, anything less than fully positive in your assessment of

har?

office.

A

Q

there. How closely did you work with [ll] HEB, and again, I

that =-=-

A

Do you have any -- did you have any negative -- you

No.
Okay .

I think she was a good, strong, dedicated AUSA.

all right. [HN HN --

Yeah.

== was the managing AUSA at the West Palm Beach

Correct.

At least -- and would -- and | I worked

Mm=hmm.

-- assessment question --
Right.

-- what was your assessment of him?

EFTA00009254



4

wo

10

11

12

13

14

17

18

19

21

22

23

23

Page 27

2) S50, less so, only because of geographic distance.
Q Mm~=hmm .
A I would also say he was a respected professional.
He had a good reputation. He went on to be chief of staff
here at the -- at the criminal division, which I think speaks |

to how he was viewed within the department.

2 Mm=hmm .

A And so, I would say positive.

Q Okay. So, now turning to the Epstein case. |
FY Yeah.

Q Now that your recall has been refreshed by virtue
of the documents we've provided, before we get into the

actual sort of documents and some of the details of the

events, would you please give us a general overview of what
you currently remember, refreshed, about how the case came
into the U.S. Attorney's Office, how it was assessed for
prosecution, and how and why the decision was made to resolve

it with a two-year state plea that ultimately became an 18 --

2) Okay. |

Q == I mean, yeah, a two year state plea that
ultimate becama =--

A All right.

Q -- an 18 month state plea.

A Okay, so ==

MR. HERRON: Before you answer the question, let me

EFTA00009255


——————————————

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

EFTA00009256


10

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 29
ME. HERRON: == the cleanest record.

THE WITNESS: Okay. So, three parts. How did it

come into the office? How did -- I'm sorry --
aE 0 FB

Q How was -- how did it come in?

A Right.

Q How was it assessed for prosecution --

2) Right.

Q -- and then how and -- how and why the decision was
made ==

A Right.

je -- to resolve it the way it was.

R So, so, let's begin with how did it come inte the

office. Putting all the documents aside, I can't say with
certainty how it came in. I can speculate how it came in,
and the way it would have come into the office is -- I can
speculate that the chief -- the chief rider from Palm Beach
County would have brought it to either the FBI or to the Palm
Beach Office. I'm not certain that I would have asked who
brought this case to the cffice as opposed to the case is now
in the office, so let's --

Q Right.

A -- let's discuss it, right? The format, or the
mode in which it came in I think is important, because my

recollection is it arrived to us in the position that the

EFTA00009257


10

11

12

13

14

15

le

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 30

state attorney had negotiated a plea, and that the reason
that we looked at it was that that plea was going to be --
that there had been an initial charge that wasn't pursued,
and that required jail time and registration, and that the
plea that was going to be taken was a charge that didn't
require jail time, and didn't require registration, and based
on the preliminary assessment of the facts, that seemed --

that seems wrong. Seo, that's how did it arrive. The next

question was --

Q How was it assessed for federal prosecution?
B So -=- so, it was assessed for federal prosecution,
my recollection, from -- from very early on, and I'm sure

we'll talk about this some more, is you have a case that,
while technically it wasn't final at the state level, but for
federal involvement, would have been final, and -- and so
from the earliest point, we were thinking federal versus
state and petite, and the contemporaneous record sort of
shows -- at least the material that I got, the earliest
communication was Mr. [Jil telling me that [J is
preparing a petite policy waiver -- that Ms. I is

preparing a petite policy waiver, and that's consistent with

my recollection of how it was assessed, and -- and then
brought in -- assessed, you know, does it make sense to go
forward, yes, investigate, and circle back. And then -- and

then the third part was the --

EFTA00009258



10

11

13

14

15

17

18

19

22

23

24

25

Page 31
Q How and why the disposition.

A So, my general recollection is the view was that if

the state had followed through on an original charge -- I
don't recall which -- that called for jail time and that
called for registration, that the local police or whoever
brought it would not have seen the need to refer it.

And so, that was in terms of pre-indictment

resolution, a -- a logical and reasonable place given all the
other sort of factors, both the petite concefns, the witness
concerns, and the legal concerns.

And to that, I would add a fourth concern, which is

it had already been reviewed by a grand jury at the state

level, is my recollection. And so, to some extent, that's

indicative of how some individuals may sort of view this

matter.

Q Okay. We're going to pick that apart.

A I figured.

Q But thank you for that.

A You -- you asked for an overview, so I tried to

just be very --

Q Teah.

A -- general.
Q That doesn't -- that doesn't -- the second part of
that last prong was -- was why a two year state plea. In

other words, you talked about -- you talked about assessing

———— |

EFTA00009259


Page 32

1 the case and why resolve it, but why with a two year state

2 plea? What's the --

3 A And so --
4 Q == overview?
| 2 2) And so my general recollection is -- my
6 understanding -- if I was asked, what is the best
1 understanding that I have of why two years, is that is what
| B would have been obtained in one of the original state
9 charges. &gain, this is --
10 Q How do you know that?
11 A We ==
| 12 Q How did you know that?
13 RB I'm -=- that's why I say general recollection. I'm
14 reconstructing memories of that 12 years ago. I can
15 speculate that at some point, the matter came up, and I or
| 16 someone else said if, you know, what would the original --
17 what would the original plea have -- you know, what would the
18 original charges have likely brought? And someone said this

1% amount.

20 Q How would have said that? |
21 A I == I'm speculating at this point. I don't have a
22 recollection, but -- but that's -- that's my general

23 understanding.
24 Q All right. All right. We'll now unpack --

25 B Yeah, I --

EFTA00009260


10

11

12

13

14

13

17

18

LS

20

22

23

24

Page 33

Q -- some of that.

pa == 1 noticed.

Q And by the way, my colleagues, we're all in this

boat together. So, they're going to feel free to --

A I know.

Q == chime in --

A Yeah.

Q -- as they see fit. So, the first thing going --

going to the intake of the case, we know from the records

that -- and by the way, we've cbviously done a great deal of

other investigation =--

A Right.

Q -- and spoken to many people. So, me I

briefed you and Jl J pretty much when the case first

came in --

2) Mm=-hmm.

Q -=- in mid-2006, after the FBI and indeed the
office == the U.S. Attorney's Office in West Palm had opened

the case, but before Epstein was indicted. So, this first
exhibit, Exhibit No. 1 that you have in your binder before
you == or, in your folder before you -- is that e-mail from

|] [|] to you that you just referred to dated July 24 --

A Right.
Q == 2006, in which he's sort of passing on the
information that Epstein has by now been arrested -- been

EFTA00009261



10

11

|.

13

14

15

le

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

Page 34
indicted -- arrested and indicted by the state. Do you

recall anything about that original briefing from ne
Ck

A lI -- I don't.

Q All right. Did you know at the time that -- at the

time she briefed you --

b Mm- hrm .

Q == which is prior to Exhibit 1, did you know who

Epstein was?
A I did not.
Q Never heard of him, to your knowledge?

A To my knowledge, I don't recall having heard of

him. |
Q And what did you understand at that early point the
case to be about?

Fis So, I don't recall the briefing, and so I can't

give an independent recollection. You know, based on this, I

mean, the --

Q You're talking about Exhibit 1, and you're =--

A Based on --
Q == looking at --

RB == based on Exhibit 1, you know, I can =-- I can
infer that this would have been my general understanding of
the case, and you know, and the key things that I point here

is pre-trial diversion, which is code for no jail time, and

|

EFTA00009262


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

EFTA00009263


f=¥

[ual

10

11

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

22

23

24

23

Page 36

A I certainly had an understanding of the general
facts of the case early on. I can't speak to whether it was
mid-2006 versus late 2006 versus 2007, but --

Q Mm-hmm .

A -- early on, I certainly had an understanding that
it was a case that involved, you know, a billionaire who was

doing sordid things with young women or girls who were

minors.

Q [a ] and the records indicate that her

concern in bringing this all the way to you --

ha Mm~ hmm.

Q == and her first at that time criminal chief --
A Right.

Q -- but sort of acting First Assistant I

Bl 2s because she was afraid of political pressure that
might be brought to bear against the U.S. Attorney's Office

in this case. Do you have any recollection of that being a

concern that was laid before you?

A I don't -- again, I don't recall the early -- that
briefing. I've reviewed this e-mail, and -- and I can -- you
know, I take it -- it would have been natural for me to say,

should we approach the state attorney, because we had lots of
ongoing matters with the state attorney, and it seems that
Bl s2ic no for fear it'll be leaked straight to Epstein,

and I assumed I'd let it be at that point.

EFTA00009264



10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

23

—— —!

Page 37
Q And do you know -- oh, do you know what he meant by

it being leaked to Epstein by the state -- by Barry -- Barry

Erischer, the then State Attorney?

Bn So == 50, based on the context --

2) == what I would assume is that if the state
attorney 1s cutting this kind of deal, and it appears that

things have already leaked, because you know, there's clearly

and article here with leaked -- you know, so, something has
already leaked. |
Q You're referring to Exhibit 17

I Exhibit 1. Other things would leak.

Q Had you ever met Barry Krischer?

A Sure.

Q What was your relationship with him?

A So, there were multiple state attorneys within the
district. He was -- it was a professional relationship. We,
you know --

Q It was an elected position, correct?

A It was an elected position.

Q And what was your assessment of his aggressiveness

as a prosecutor, and his capabilities?
2 On the public -- my -- most of my assessment with
him was on the public corruption front, where we had brought

several cases, and I was a little disappointed that these

_ I—

EFTA00009265


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 38

were cases he could have brought that he chose not to bring.

Q Right. So, is it -- can I -- am I accurate in

inferring from that that you didn't regard him as a

particularly hard charging prosecutor?
R So, I =-- with any state attorney, I hesitate to
sort of paint broad brush strokes. I don't think that's

always fair, but my experience had been in the public

corruption space. [
Q Yeah.
A And in that space, I did not think -- whether it

was him, or whether it was his office, I can't speak, but I

did not think they had done as much as they could have done. |

Q Is there any area in which you thought he and his
office did pursue aggressively?
R so, as I recall, we had had -- we had emphasized

gun crimes quite a bit, and really had had a lot of success

moving -- moving the ball in the gun crimes space in Palm |
Beach.

Q What --

A But let me -- let me just say, it's also very
difficult to reconstruct time frames. |

Q Mm-hmm .

RB And so, I hesitate, because I don't know if that

was 2006 or 2007, or -- but you asked in another area, and --

Q In this Exhibit 1, you ask whether it's

EFTA00009266


| Page 39

1 appropriate -- appropriate to approach Barry Erischer and
2 give him a heads up as to where the U.S. Attorney's Office
3 might go, presumably --

| 4 A Right.

5 Q -=- with this case?
3 A Correct. I
7 Q Why would you want to extend that difference to

ll 8 him? Why would it matter?

9 A A colleague in law enforcement. I thought it was

[|
10 important for the office te work with -- with state attorneys
11 as a general matter, and I found that the office worked best

[ 12 when it had good working relationships with state attorneys
13 and with == you know, with -- for that matter, the agency

14 SACs and others, and --

15 Q Right.
16 B -= but again, you know, rather than my asserting,
[5

I'm asking B and LL was saving no, and I don't know
18 what the ultimate outcome was, but I would guess that we'd

19 just defer and let it be.

20 Q Turning to Exhibit 2, this is an e-mail that was
| 21 forwarded to you by [ } the original forwarded e-

23 essentially relates to a dust up between [JJ] I 2nc

24 ] a over chain of command, and her workload, but

25 in the first paragraph, she specifies that, "When I first

a

EFTA00009267


14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page
heard about the Epstein investigation, I spoke with [|

about it. Be was not here."

"JJ s2id that she would back me up on the case, ll

but I knew what has happened to the state prosecution can

happen to the federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney's

Office isn't on board. So, I spoke with [ about the case,

and he spoke with Alex, and they gave the green light."

So, that -- that actually appears to be an initial

contact with [Jj that she's talking about prior to the

briefing of you, so, way early when the case first came in in

May of 2006. Do you recall being contacted or having a

conversation with ==

A Mm-hmm.

Q -- I Bl =bcut that case so early?

A Again, the early recollection, whenever -- whenever |

it might have taken place, was I was made aware of the
matter. It seemed a reasonable matter to pursue, and that

the level of detail that I recall.

Q so, if [J] said back in the day that she got from

you all the green light, what did you understand her toc be

being authorized to do -- authorize may be toc strong a word,
but ==
R So, to pursue -- to investigate =- to pursue -- i
Q Yeah.
A -- to someone, you know, I == I'm speculating here,

's

|

40)

EFTA00009268


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

Page 41

but there's a case, and they want to know, should we spend
our time on this? And the answer is it seems reasonable.

Sure.

Q Okay, and do you -- do you recall making that
explicit to her?

B I -- I don't, and -- and it wouldn't have been my |
practice to -- to sort of make it explicit to =-- yeah, go
spend your time, as opposed to, thank you for letting me
know, that scunds reasonable.

Q All right. 1

= And whatever, you know, details it looks like based
on Exhibit 1, there was subsequent follow up between her and

BE cr with her and the management team, and they said, you

know, go back, work on A, B, and C.

Q Do you know what |] [ was talking about
when she referred to something happening te a federal
prosecution if the U.S. Attorney is not on board? Had there

been a case in which you were not supportive of a particular

prosecution that was being proposed? |
I} None -- none that I recall, and -- and I knew that
what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a

federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney's not on board. I

don't recall any federal prosecution that I wasn't supportive
of, at least in -- in this context.

Q What do you mean by this context?

EFTA00009269


| Page 42

1 A It was my way of narrowing an answer so I didn't
2 spend the time to go through every office and every division.

3 For the most part, as I sit here, I'm sort of running through

4 each office. I don't recall any, and -- and if I could, |

5 based on this -- on Exhibit 2, I'm not sure that she's

& referring to a specific case as opposed to concerns that the

7 state prosecution started at point -- you know, with charges
| 8 that required jail time and ended up somewhere else, and it

9 may have been because management -- |

10 Q All right.

11 A -- wasn't.

12 Q But that's -- that's a current -- a reading of --
| 13 2 Yeah.

14 Q == this, rather --

15 Fl That -- that's my —-

le Q == than a recollection?

17 A -- that's my reading, not =--

18 Q All right. Based on the early description you got

15 of the case --
20 A Right.

21 Q

== did you have any idea how many victims were

22 involved?

23 A I did not.

24 Q Did you know what the name of the case was? What

23 the investigation's name was? You know, cases get names.

I — SE

EFTA00009270


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

EFTA00009271


10

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

23
24

25

Page 44

my management staff --
Q Right.

A == to pursue it. It wouldn't be a, here are all

the facts associated with this case, just heads up. There is
a2 high profile case involving a very wealthy man abusing |
young women, a state attorney is prosecuting, but you know,
there's dissatisfaction. I wanted to give you a heads up,

both to inform me, but also so that I'm aware in my

interactions with -- with other Palm Beach officials.
Q Okay. Based on whatever information you got at the
time, did you think that there was a federal interest to be

served by pursuing a federal prosecution potentially?

A Yes.

Q And what was that?

A So, the exploitation of young women.
Q Girls.

A Girls.

Q I want to be -- I want to be --

h Minors. Minor females.

Q All right. I -- you know, for a -- for a sort of a

glossary convention =-

A Right. |
Q -- that we are using is -- and we can use in this
interview, is girls =--

B Right.

EFTA00009272


12

13

14

17

18

13

21

22

23

24

25

Page 45
Q == for the victims who at the time of the conduct

were minors, and women, for those who were not, even though

the girls at a later time became age of --

A Fair.
Q -= majority.
B Fair.

Q Okay. So, here, we're really talking about the

A Okay.

Q -- who were victims.

B Yeah, yeah.

Q Okay.

A Girls, minor females. I just don't -- sometimes
that term is viewed differently. And so --

Q Right.

A Yeah, so the exploitation of girls or minor
females, and that certainly is an important federal interest.
Q Well, and is the number and the breadth of the
scheme -- the scope of the activity also a factor there? In

other words, it wasn't one or twe on cone or two cccasions.

A So, there's several factors that probably go into
what's the federal interest. The acts, the sordidness of the
acts, the -- the number, the likelihood or the importance of
registration was important te my mind because that -- that

goes to future prevention to putting the community on notice.

EFTA00009273



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

22 Q == Hl Bl ir order to tell you about this |

23 case, and get from you --

24 A Okay.

25 Q -- a green light --

EFTA00009274


Page 47
1 A ] ==
2 Q == to proceed with it.
| 3 pal I ask, because I recall an e-mail, and I don't know
4 what the time would have been, where she's coming to Miami,
5 and Jf says. why don't you stop by my office first?
3 Q Right.
7 A And == and -- and I keep =-- I would -- I would
8 speculate that, why don’t you stop by my office first is, why
9 don't you give me a bunch of details, and then we will walk
| 10 across to the U.S. Attorney --
11 Q Right.
12 A == and fill him in, and so that would have been
13 almost a two-tiered discussion.
14 o) And is that --
15 nL And I don't know if that -- if that -- the timeline
16 on that e-mail is when you say briefing.
17 Q Well, we are -- we are asking --
18 A I ==
| 19 Q What it -- what it would =--
20 1 Yeah.
21 Q -=- ba.
22 A I'm speaking just based on review of the record,
23 not based on recollection here.
24 Q All right. So, you have -- to be clear, you have
25 no recollection of any specific briefing in 20067?
EE —_—

EFTA00009275


Page 48

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

EFTA00009276


12

13

14

16

17

18

20
21
22
EB
24

25

Page 49
the -- the law, and we'll probably get into that. I alluded

to that earlier in the overview. I don't know if that would
have been developed this early on, but -- but that's not a
function of his wealth. That's a functiecn of the fact
pattern.

Q Right. Right. Okay. So, as you mentioned petite
policy concerns, petite policy, petite policy, could you tell

us what your position was on the -- on the policy as it

applied in this case as you understood it from -- in the
beginning?

23 So -- so, the policy, you know, on its face,
doesn't specifically apply. Eased on Exhibit 1, I'm now
inferring, not recalling, it looks like either Be on her

OWN, Or Be asked for a -- or, Mr.  B asked for a

petite policy waiver memo to be prepared, in part on the

assumption that the state prosecution may or may not have

gone for it.

I don't know, but I know -- I do recall that early
on, this was unusual, because it had been -- he had been
arrested or arraigned. It was going forward on the part of

the state, and so here is the big bad federal government

stepping on a sovereign, you know, state, saying you're not |
doing enough, and to my mind, when, you know, the whole idea
of the petite policy is te recognize that that estate has --

you know, is an independent entity, and that we should

_ _ |

EFTA00009277


Page 50
1 presume that what they're doing is correct, even if we don't
2 like the outcome, except in the most unusual of
3 circumstances.
4 Q And what kinds of -- well, so, the petite policy
5 exists because there's a recognition that there are cases
6 that are appropriately pursued. I mean, you were the head of
L the civil rights division, after all.
8 A Correct, which is why I say except in the most
9 appropriate of circumstances.
10 Q Right.
11 A But let me add that based on this, I was
| 12 comfortable, you know, saying, let's go forward, because the
13 lack of jail time, you know, to use -- to use petite policy
14 language, a plea that did not include jail time or
15 registration would seem like a manifest injustice.
16 Q All right. So, did you have any doubt that you'd
17 get a waiver if you applied for one?

18 A I'm not -—— so -- so, I'm now speculating. I don't
19 recall, but I'm not sure I would have said, is there a doubt
| 20 that I'd get a waiver as opposed to, is this something I feel

21 comfortable doing, or not? And --
22 Q And this being the prosecutien, or this being
23 the -- applying for a waiver?
( 24 B Applying for a waiver. And so, you know, either
25 main justice gives it or doesn't give it. That doesn't mean
i SE

EFTA00009278

|



| Page 51

1 you don't apply for it if you think it's the right thing te

2 do.
| 3 So, for example, in the UBS case, which was one of
4 our big tax, you know, prosecutions, we asked for a Bank of
5 Nova Scotia -- |
& Q Mm-hmm .
7 A -- authorization to the Bank of Nova Scotia
8 subpoena, and I didn't think Main Justice would -- you know,

9 I pushed really hard, and I got into the weeds in that case

10 for that purpose, but I still thought, let's go for it, and

11 we did, and Main Justice didn't give in to it, and that's

12 okay. That's how it works.
13 Q Okay. So, they denied that request?
14 A They denied that request, and I say that as an |
15 example of -- as a typical matter, I don't think what's main
| 16 justice going to say, as opposed to how do we -- how should

17 we approach this matter?

18 Q I don't understand about what you mean by, how
19 should we approach this matter.
20 2) So, honestly, how do I -- how do I explain this?

21 So, I think there's a difference in saying, let me predict

22 how main justice will come out, and follow that prediction,

23 versus, folks, what do you all think? Okay. If we're

24 comfortable with this, let's write it up, and let's see what

25 Main Justice does.

EFTA00009279


Page 52

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

EFTA00009280



Page 53

1 policy grounds, and I'm pushing back a little bit, because I

2 don't think it's, it's part or it's not, as opposed to when I

3 you lock at a case, there are all sorts of factors, and it is

[i=%

a factor in how you think of a matter going forward.
5 ey Ms. [EGR

& Q If you had those petite policy concerns -- you or |

7 members of your staff?

0

A I would say a combination of me and my management
9 staff.
10 ey Ms. [GE
11 Q Who? Who?
12 A I can't == I can't recreate --
13 Q But who are you dealing with on this case?
14 il Primarily, it would be my first assistant and |
15 criminal chief as I typically -- so, there is, you know, to

1g sort of put it in main justice terms, you know, a line

17 attorney has a deputy section chief and a section chief and a
| 18 DAG and an AAG, and the AAG usually deals with the section
19 chief, or the DAG. BAnd seo, I was dealing with my first I

20 assistant and my crim chief.

21 Q Right, and they were there in Miami.

22 RB And they were there in Miami.

23 Q And by the way, [NEN HN <:i:st 1ine |
24 supervisor was [IN HEE.

25 A Correct.

EFTA00009281


LT)

10

11

12

13

14

15

l6

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

23

Page 54

Q Do you know why she was not actively participating

in this chain of command?

hn I noticed that in the correspondence, and I

couldn't speak to that.
Q All right.

B But the -- but it goes to the point that if you

look at the -- she reported to I. who reported to 3
who reported to BE. who reported to Be. And so, as a
typical matter, I tried to empower my first assistant and my |

criminal chief and my cffice heads and work through them, not

bypass them.

Q In this particular case with regard either to the
petite policy --

A Right.

Q == or any other aspect, was there anyone other than
that group of five, if you will, in that chain --

A Correct.

@  -- from you down to [NN INE <hro.on HIE,
EE -

A Right. |
Q -- and [Jl that you were dealing with?
A I can't recall. I -- I can -- I can say as a

general matter, it would not be unusual for me to walk

down =-- walk down the hall and talk tc someone that I trust

and say, hey, I've got this fact pattern. What do you think?

EFTA00009282


Lin

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

Q Do you recall ever doing that in connection with

this case?

A I == I don't recall the specific briefings or who I

talked to. I'm just saying as a general matter that there
are folks on my -- on the eighth floor that were in
management that I would often just walk down the hall, and

Q But do you recall doing that -=-

2 I don't —--

Q -= in this case?

A I don't recall.

Q Ckay. So, we shared with you in Exhibit 3 a pretty (

lively exchange between [J HI 2 < HIN INE

You didn't -- we have no reason to believe you saw this
before, but it makes some representations about you, and

that's why we brought it to your attention.

A Okay.

Q Do you recall this e-mail exchange?

2) I don't recall the e-mail exchange. |
Q I mean, you --

a But I =--

Q == didn't see it then. Do you recall having read

it before today?

A I recall reviewing it, ves.

Q All right. Okay. So, starting from the end, 1]

BE usin Bl BE clackberry, which is a little

Page 55

EFTA00009283


EEE — —_— =e —
Page 56
confusing to begin with == notifies [JR that -- of a -- of

==

2 a particular conversation he had with one of the defense I
3 attorneys. At this point, what I want to do is draw your

4 attention to the -- the comment, and his response, and we're

3 looking at page --

6 A Page -- |
L Q == three.

8 A -- page three.

3 Q Se, in the third paragraph --
10 A Yeah. |
11 Q == "it was made clear to you by the U.S. Attorney

12 and the first assistant from the time when you were first
13 authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had
14 concerns about taking the case because of petite policy and a
15 number of legal issues." And then later he says that, "You [|
1&6 were never given authorization by anyone to seek an

17 indictment in this case."

18 And -- close quote -- and then on the first page,

12 | ME o:cscnts her version of that original contact
20 with you, meeting with you, at the bottom of the page. it
21 Halfway through the last paragraph, she says, "My

22 recollection of the original meeting with Alex and I is

23 quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I

24 summarized the case and the state attorney's office handling

25 of it."

EFTA00009284


Page 57
1 "I acknowledged that we needed to do work to

| :

collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I
3 noted the time and month," -- that -- I'm sorry, "I noted the
4 time and money that would be required for an investigation.

2 I said I was willing to invest time and the FBI was willing

6 toe invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the end of
7 it," == "to the end, and then have the office be intimidated
8 by the high powered lawyers. I was assured that would not

9 happen." Can you tell us which version of that initial --

10 which version =--

11 1) Right.
12 Q == is correct?
13 A So, again, I don't remember that initial briefing,
14 so I can't tell you which version is correct. I would also

15 say that it's possible neither version is correct and that

| 16 there's a little bit of truth -- now I'm just speculating --
17 Q Rll right.
18 A == that there's a little bit of truth in either

19 one, because it's certainly possible to say, I hear you,
¥

20 righteous case, go forward and investigate, work on the
I 21 federal nexus, which is what Exhibit 3 is saying, go work on
22 the federal nexus and find evidence for the federal nexus.

23 But we have concerns about petite policy and legal matters,

24 so there's a lot of work to be done.
25 Q So, what kind of a direction does that amount to
EE =|

EFTA00009285


fat

Oo

10

11

13

14

15

17

18

19

22

23

24

25

Page 58
for the line AUSA? What's her job then?

A So, the job would then be te go back and

investigate, and develop facts and report back.

Q And if she developed enough facts, and supportive
law to present proposed prosecution?

:\ Right.

Q Okay.

Rn And so -- so, a lot of times in this he said, she

said, there's a little bit of truth to both sides of the

discussion. I'm just -- I'm just saying as a general matter,
I wouldn't -- your guestions are sometimes either or, and
sometimes --

Q Right.

I == it can be a combination of both.

Q All right, and == but in fact you don't recall?
A But I'm speculating.
Q All right. Is there anything in either of those

that two accounts -- two versions that you say didn't happen,

couldn't happen?

B I can't, because I don't recall it. I can't --

Q Okay.

A -- speak to that. I would speculate that there's
probably a little bit of truth on both sides that -- and if

you read it closely, you'll see that || acknowledges the

need to work on a federal nexus. So, that goes to, you know,

EFTA00009286



a

ka

Le

10

11

12

13

15

l6

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

22

Page 59

where Jl -- or, Mr. J} I'm sorry, I'm calling —- I'm

using first names.

Q

A

Q

20

mean that disrespectfully -- where, you know, HE says, you
know, because of petite policy and legal issues, and lL EE
acknowledging the legal issues, because she's saying needed

work to do to collect evidence establishing the federal

nexus.

Q

a

Foo

Q

tells you in his e-mail that the indictment target date is

August 25, 2006.

A

Q

A

Q

why the line AUSA, [IN EB was keen on getting the

Its' all right.
So, I'm going to just start --
This is an informal interview.

I'm going to just start using first names. I don't |

All right.

S30 ==

Yeah.

So, they're not as inconsistent as presented --
All right.

== arguably.

Back in 2006, in this Exhibit No. 1, |] | | |]

Mm-hmm.
In other words, very shortly --

Right.

-- thereafter, within a month or so. Do you know

EFTA00009287


Wr

10

11

12

18

19

20

42

23

24

23

Page 6&0

federal case against Epstein brought on a fairly -- on a
quick basis?

A So, I can't speak to that, and -- and can I -- can
I ask, based on your record, was that that the -- was that
the state indictment target date, or was that --

Q He already --

:) -- a federal -- [|

Q -=- Epstein had already been indicted and arraigned
on the --

B Right.

Q == indictment, so that's the federal. il
A S0 -- s0, that's ==

Q That's talking about a federal indictment.
A All right.

Q The point --

A Correct. I

Q == is that early on --

A Right.

Q -- the investigative team, the FBI --

A Right. [

0 -- and [ll] BI vc:c hot to trot to get

A Right.

Q -- case moving from a federal standpoint. That may

well have been quite unrealistic given --

EFTA00009288


Li

10

12

13

14

15

18

19

20

23

24

25

L

Page 61

A Correct.

Q == all of the issues that we've been discussing,
but the question is, do you know why there was some urgency?

A I haven't the slightest idea. When was it -- when
was 1t initially brought to the office?

Q It was brought to the office in May of --

B Right.

Q -- 2006.

Bn That =-=- that would be a really, really fast
timeline.

Q Right. So, the question is, aspirational though it

may have been, there was a hope --

2 I —
Q -=- to get it done quickly.
a Right.

Q So, the question is, can you think of factors that

would have led a prosecutor to want to pursue --

A I -=
Q == this quickly?
A I don't recall. I can speculate that | EEE

very hard charging and wanted to do a lot, and --
Q Was that your experience of her?
1} So, based on this, I see, you know, so, Exhibit 2

15, you know --

Q Excuse me, would -- but just from your memory, is

EFTA00009289


—

13

14

13

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 62
that your recollection of how [IR operated? Hard charging?

2) Yeah. I'd say -- so, a lot of really good

prosecutors are hard charging. That's --

Q All right.

2) -- that's part of the job description.

Q Okay.

A And so, yes.

Q Okay. Did -- so, in the child sex offender
context, are you familiar with a -- the belief on the part of
pecple who do that kind of case, as did I I and
others in your office -- that those offenders typically don't
stop offending, even after somebody's onto them? So that
there was a concern that he -- that in this case, Jeffrey

Epstein might be continuing to offend, and therefore getting

him off the streats was --

B Right.

Q -= a priority”?

A I have heard that discussed recently in the media.
I don't recollect that back in -- part of a discussion back
in 2006.

Q All right. Okay. Do you recall that |
BEE -- 2nd this is just a, do you recall --

A Mm= hmm.

Q == that she periodically would give you in that

early period of 2006, updates -- written updates?

_|

EFTA00009290


—
Page 63
1 A I don't.
2 Q Did you think that it was appropriate for a line
3

AUSA to be shooting e-mails updating on a case that was under

4 investigation directly to you and your first assistant?
5 - It was unusual, and -- and so, so, did I think of
6 a == look, I can't reconstruct what I would have thought, but

1 you know, you're asking not just what did I know, but what

8 would I have thought 12 years ago.

9 But I can say that based on general practice, it

10 would have been unusual, and my best guess as to how I would

11 have reacted would have been, hey, I this is unusual, is
| 12 the chain being fully informed? Are feathers being --

13 Q Right.

14 B -- ruffled? Figure it out, because, you know, you

15 asked me early on to characterize BE cu:lities. I think
16 one of the things that I said was he was very good at

17 smoothing things --

18 Q Mm-hmm

19 A == over. And sort of the interaction, because he
20 was respected, and sc I might say, that's kind of unusual.

21 Go figure it out.

22 Q But you wouldn't necessarily jump that chain

23 yourself, and be --

24 pal I --

25 Q == in direct communication?

EFTA00009291


Page 64

1 A I tended not to =--

2 Q Okay.

3 R -- do that,

: =

2 Q Would she have sent this to you -- something

| 6 unusual, if she thought that this was a case that you wanted
7 to be involved in?

B A Even in -- even in those, I tried to be, as a

9 general matter, fairly sensitive to the chain, because I had
10 found that if you start jumping the chain too much, even if

11 you become informed, managers feel, you know, out of =-- out

12 of the loop, and that's not -- that's not conducive to sort

13 of allowing them to do their job of supervising. It's a big

14 enough office, you have toc empower your folks to do their
15 Jobs.

[|
le Q So the concern on your part would not be that she

17 was communicating directly to you, but that as long as all of

18 the chain was informed as well?

13 A Yeah. TI mean, if you're -- if you're IE EE

20 or you know, if you're Jjjjjj¢ °r vou know, don't you want to
21 talk to the line attorney before the line attorney talks to

22 your boss?

23 And so, it's not just informed, but it's respecting

24 your supervisor. And it's a difficult balance, because often

25 really good RAUSAs are also the ones that, you know, just want

EFTA00009292


[sd

13

14

15

16

19

20

21

22

24

25

Page 65
te get things done.

BY vs.

Q Did you have any reason to believe during this

investigative phase that BEE BEE 2c not pursuing

this case -- this investigation adequately, appropriately,

and fully?

FA No, I did not.

Q Did you --

F:\ Not to my recollection.

Q Did you feel that she did not have appropriate
oversight?

A Not to my recollection.

Q Okay. Deo you -- did you feel that she had any
resource problem? That is, did she have, as far as you knew,
sufficient resources available to pursue her investigation?

A To my recollection, yes, I noted her early -- you
know, I noted more recently the e-mail where -- you know,
that was shared with me by [|] about resource concerns, and
I would just note that I would allow the management chain to
figure that out.

Q All right. Were you -- did you at any point
consider, based on what you then knew, expanding the scope of
the investigation? Did you ever suggest or propose that
instead of simply looking at Epstein's conduct in West Palm

Beach vis a vis these girls, that the federal authorities

EFTA00009293


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

22

23

24

23

Page 66

could use their resources to lock at other aspects of
Epstein's activities?
2 50, I == so, I think it's important to take a step

back, and I was aware of any number of cases going on in the

office, and based on what that stage of case was at, I would |
get more involved for a time.

It wasn't my practice to direct AUSAs in how they
should investigate, or what the scope of a case investigation
should be. They -- the Miami office, before I got there, and
after I left, had a reputation for knowing their stuff. It's
a large office. It's got good people. I would assume that ll
AUSAs and their management would follow their natural leads.

Q All right. Were you aware that during this
pericd -- and by this peried, I'm talking about the
investigative period from the time that the case came in in
mid-2006 --

A Right.

Q == up until May 1 when [1] | [1] [ [1] put forth

her pros memo --

B Right.
Q -- and proposed indictment. During that sort of
ten menth period, or almost a year, were you aware that

defense counsel for Epstein were reaching out to ||]

IEE =< tc Bl I tc pitch their view of how the

casa ==

EFTA00009294


11

12

13

14

15

18

19

20

23

24

25

Page 67
RB Right.
Q == should proceed?
A 50, I don't have a specific recollection of who

reached out at what time. I would assume as a general matter

that defense counsel -- defense counsel were clearly involved
before the case came to the office. and so, I would assume
that defense counsel would remain involved while the office
was investigating. I say that not based on independent

recollection, but --

Q Right.

RB == why would they stop being involved?

Q And is it in your experience as a U.S. Attorney,
was it common or uncommon for defense counsel to approach the
line prosecutor and supervisor to make whatever pitch they
want with respect to a prosecution?

A Fairly common.

Q All right, and was it also common for those

approaches to be entertained? In other words, for the line
AUSA and supervisor --
A Right.
Q -= to meet with defense counsel?
B As a -- as a general matter, yeah,

Q And did you view that as appropriate?

A As a general matter, it was typical. It happened

before I got there, and is probably happening now.

EFTA00009295


10

11
|
13
14
15
16
fl 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

LL

= —— —
Page 68
Q And you view it as an appropriate part of the
process? Do you?
Fil I think AUSAs need to have discretion to meet with |

defense counsel, and defense counsel certainly should be able
to present perspectives,

Q There is an outlook -- this is Exhibit 4, and this
is something =--

A Okay.

Q == it's really sort of a point of information here.
This is an outlook that shows you and Bg zc BE had
a scheduled meeting with Roy Black.

A Mm~- hmm. |

Q Roy Black, a prominent =--

A Right.

Q == local criminal defense attorney at the time in
the Miami area. This was a meeting scheduled in your office

for the 23rd of February of 2007. Do you have any -- he was

a -- he at the time --

2) Right.

Q == was one of Epstein's attorneys. Do you have any
idea whether this meeting related to Epstein or some other
case?

2) I don't. TI noticed that and I don't know whether

lt was this or another matter.

Q But you have not particular recollection of meeting

EFTA00009296


ed

10

11

12

13

17

18

19

20

21

24

23

Page 69
with him on the Epstein matter --

A I don't.
Q -- at this time? Okay. So, I want to --
A And let me note, I think most of the correspondence

was from other attorneys and not him. And so, yeah.

Q All right. Are you -- are you ckay? Do you want

to take a short break, or =--

p= Yeah.

Q Do you =--

A Let's -- what time is it? Oh, 11:00.
Q Five minutes?

Ji} Yeah.

Q Five minutes?

B Yeah. Let's take a five minute break.

Q Off the record.
(Off the record.)
BY MS. IHEENE
Q All right, back on the record at 11:12, having
broken at 11:00. Mr. Acosta, we're going to move to that
time frame I mentioned a moment ago, May of 2007 when | |] ]

BE sutrnitted her prosecution memo of more than 80

pages, and her proposed indictment -- her initial proposed
indictment, which was more than 50 pages.

She submitted that by transmittal memo to her

EFTA00009297


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

159

20

21

22

23

24

£3

— —=
Page 70

 B and you. Was that a typical way for an indictment

and proposed prosecution? The memo to come?

ha) To my recollection, it was not, and I don't recall
that happening in other cases. I'm trying -- I'm hesitating,
Just because I'm trying to think through if there's -- I
don't have any recollection of it happening in another case.

Q Why do you think it happened in this case? And who |

caused it to happen?

B I don't know, and I don't know.

Q All right. All right. So, you -- when you --
before you saw it -- I den't know if you even knew about
it == you =-- by reference to Exhibit 6, you learned
essentially from [J] Jl] that the FBI was planning to do
a press conference two weeks after that, and [| told

I this office has not approved the indictment,

therefore, "please do not commit us to anything at this

time." Were you -- and eventually that e-mail chain --
A Right.
Q == gets to you, apparently by blind carbon, because

there's no indication you actually get it.
B Right.
Q But you advise Alicia Valle, who I think was your |
press person --

B Correct.

Q -= that, "I hasn't even finished her

I

EFTA00009298


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 71

recommendation to iilf, i.e., we are a long way off." So,
did you have any idea why the FBI was planning a press
conference on Epstein?

i) I don't -- I don"t know if I did. I don't recall
if I did.

Q Was it -- how typical was it for the FBI to plan a
press conference on an indicted -- on a case that was being
indicted at the time of an indictment or arrest without
coordinating that with you and your office?

a Under [1] ] HE (ichly atypical.

Q He was the SAC at the time?

B He was the SAC -- he was the SAC -- I know he was
the SAC at the time as of September, and I'm almost certain
he was the SAC at the time,

Q All right. And when you said that we are a long
way off, and [jj hasn't even finished her recommendation to
Bll can -- do you know whether you had any idea that she

had actually submitted her pros memo, and that she had made a

recommendation to I:

:) I can't -- I can't recollect --
Q Ckay.
BR == but I'll take my words as reflective of, if I

say she hasn't finished her recommendation, then I assume she
hasn't finished her recommendation, but I don't recall --

Q Does that mean --

EFTA00009299



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

EFTA00009300


23

24

25

Page 73
Cl It needs to be scrubbed. You know, this could be --

this ain't happening next week,

Q All right, but in your -- do you have any reason to
believe that whatever that process is that you were
describing would be any -- any different in any particular
measure in this case from the ordinary complex case?

Fh 50, from my language, I would take that it's the
same process, but that there is a process, and the process
hasn't yet been followed.

Q All right. Okay.

I So, it would be the typical process in a typical
complex case.

Q All right, and is it fair to characterize this as a
relatively complex case, given the legal issues?

2) I think it is, yes.

Q Okay. In Exhibit 8B, you actually got the =-- in
Exhibit 7, you see that in the bottom part of that that you

received a copy of the pros memo on the second page of that

exhibit at the top.

a Right.
Q I Bl is forwarding to you the pros memo.
:) Right.

Q@ In Exhibit 8, you see that [JJ] HEN :-

forwarding or sending to that chain, excluding |

BE >: i=. lll Bl Bl 2c vou, additional

EFTA00009301



Page 74

1 items in Operation Leap Year, and that's a summary of the

2 indictment, and evidence regarding the individual victims.

3 Okay? So, as of May 11, you had before you the pros memo,

4 the proposed indictment, and this substantial amount of

= additional --

a A Right.

7 Q == information. Did you read the pros memo?

B B Right. So, I don't recall -- and I know you're

9 going to say, why don't I, but this was a long time ago. I
10 don't recall if I read it, or if I went back to the office
11 and sat down with [ and | and went over it. I can't
12 recall from this far. I can say that it looks based on this
13 that I was at the U.S. Attorney's conference.

14 Q Mm-hmm .

15 A The idea of printing this out on a hotel printer, I
16 wouldn't -- I can't believe I would have printed this out on
17 a hotel printer.

18 Q Let alone read it on an airplane, correct?

15 A Let alone read it on an airplane. That just

20 wouldn't --
21 Q Right.
22 n -- have been my practice.
23 Q But going back -- arriving back --

24 :Y Right.

25 Q -- to your office, was it your practice to take

EE

EFTA00009302



10

11

12

13

14

16

17

19

20

21

23

24

25

Page 75 |

voluminous documents like this and go through them yourself,
or did you rely on your senior staff?

L I would typically rely on senior staff. They --
they're the experienced ones that have seen these matters |
before. They would go through it. We'd sit down. We'd talk

about the issues. We might have it in front of us, almost

like you've got all those -- l
Q Okay.
A == binders there, but you know, you're calling my

attention te particular issues, and we'd sort of talk it

through. I
Q And do you recall doing that in this case?
B I recall having discussions with senior staff about

this case.
0 Who? I

2} Certainly [ll] an< [ll zt various points, and

I can't say that I did that in May versus April versus June.
I can't give you --
Q All right.

hy == timelines.

Q Well, we're talking now about May.

A Right.

Q Because you've got the actual --
A Yeah.

Q -- process.

EFTA00009303


N=9

a0

10

11

13

14

15

16

18

15

20

22

23

24

25

Page 76

A It would have been my practice based on this to go
back and discuss it, and so based on my practiced, I would

have gone back and likely discussed it. I doubt I would have

printed this out at whatever hotel I was at.

Q But even when you got back to the office, would you

have had somebody print it out so you would'we had it

available?

A I may have had someone print it out so it's
available. I may have focused on particular parts of it.

Q What kinds of issues would you have focused on? In
other words -- in other words, some might go straight to the
facts.

R Right.

Q Some might be interested in the legal theories.
What was -- what was your approach?

Fa) So, I think that depended on the case.

Q Okay.

B Here, you had legal questions, and you alse had -- I

had witness issues, and I would think those would have been

the two primary areas,

Q Would you have gone through the indictment and the

Pros memo and all of those other materials, or just relied on

your experience seeing your people, | and I:

A As a general practice, probably some combination.
As a general -- a general recollection, the concerns in this
—————— |

EFTA00009304


10

11

12

13

14

le

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

case weren't about the sordid details of what happened,
because we believed he did what he did. The concerns were
about some of the legal issues around it, and some of the
issues in terms of testimony.

Q Of the victims?

pal Of the victims.

Q All right. ©On page --

A And I say that because that would have been what I
would naturally focus on as opposed to reading the sordid
details, because I think everyone believed the victims.

Q All right. Exhibit 9 is an e-mail that you are not
on, but that -- notes that IEEEEE is advising INNENENEE that

you, [J "Has your memo and Lefcourt's letter." Gerald

Lefecourt was ==
B Mm= mm .

Q -— a New York attorney who was one of the members

of the Epstein defense team. Did you know him?

A I did not.

Q Did you ever encounter him as far as you recall?
A I did not.

Q All right. He had, according to the documents we

have, made two substantial submissions te [1] [1 111] and

B Right.

Q == February of that year in an effort to dissuade

Page 77 |

EFTA00009305


— — = "|
| Page 78

1 them from pursuing a prosecution, and we have every reason to

2 believe and no reason not to believe that that's what is

3 being referred to. Do you recall reviewing substantial
4 submissions from defense counsel at this time attacking in

| 3 very granular detail =--

8 A Mm~ hmm.
7 Q == the credibility of the witnesses, and so on?

8 :) I don't recall reviewing those. Again, I recall |
9 discussions with my senior team about issues that included
10 the credibility, and I'm not sure if it's -- credibility is

11 the right word, but how the victims would do on the stands.

12 Q Okay, and whe do you recall talking to you about
13 that?

14 :Y So, some combination of [1] |] and [| | would have
15 bene the likely -- I recall the discussion. I don't recall

16 whether it was Jj}; or whether it was BE co: Bl but che
17 logical inference would have been it would have been some
18 combination of [jj and  B

19 0 [1] [1] 1] has told us that during this period, he

20 was not actively involved in this case --

It 21 1 Mm- hrm.
22 Q -- but that J I vas. Would that be
23 consistent with your memory, or would =--

24 EB That -- sure, it -- I mean, they were a team. They

25 became more or less involved based on needs.

I

EFTA00009306


wd

10

12

13

14

15

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 79
Q And was there any particular -- if IE was

working with you directly on reporting --

A Right.

Q -- on his assessment of this case, was there any
reason for [lf HI tc be involved?

2) I might bounce ideas off him. I mean, he was -- he

was right across, so we worked closely, but you know, [111]
was the criminal chief, and if he was in the weeds, KE I
would speculate would sort of, much like me, defer to his
judgement, because they've known each other, and they've
worked together, and they had a good working relationship.

Q And is it -- do we understand correctly that as

first assistant, [Jf had a brief that really encompassed

the entire office?

A He did.

Q All right.

A He -- so, he supervised the civil, the criminal,
the appellate, and the forfeiture.

Q All right. There is here in this e-mail that you
did not see back in the day, Exhibit 9, a pushback from [1]
BEE :z=o2rding the rush that HEE IEEE is in to
pursue the case, and he says, "This is cbviously a Very
significant case, and Alex wants to take his time making sure
he is comfortable before proceeding." Do you -- can you tell

us what the basis would be for, or was, for that assertion by

EFTA00009307


10

11

12

13

14

15

le

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 80

I

B S50, I can't -- well, I can't tell you from
recollection what the basis is. I can -- I can speculate
that the materials being transmitted Friday morning -- oh, I
guess it was -- yeah, so --

Q The 11th.

BR Yeah.

Q Friday.

A So, Friday morning, it hasn't been reviewed by

anyone in the management chain, much less approved and
edited, and ne that Monday is saying why don't I have a
decision?

And =-- and so, absent truly extenuating
circumstances, typically, you'd have -- give =-- you know,
it'd go through the management chain up to the U.S. Attorney.
And so, he's pushing back, saying, hey, it's been a day, or
it's been a weekend. I'm --

Q Right.
A == I'm just reading between the lines here.

Q Whe had authority to sign off on the Epstein

prosecution? To, say, indict?

A So, as a delegated matter, [ ] had

signature authority.

Q Mm~=-hmm .

A As did -- as did [JJ 2s did [J and

EFTA00009308

_— I


Page B1

1 obviously I did. As a practice matter, this is something
2 that would have gone through the chain, and that we would I
3 have then discussed.
4 Q But why up at your level? Is it because it is, as
5 |B says: "Cbvicusly a very significant case?"
& A So, at my level, not only because of the facts,
7 because it's not about the facts, but I do think that there
8 are legal issues that -- that implicated policy, that -- that
9 we were thinking through. |
10 Q And what were -- what were the legal issues, and
11 what were the policy issues?
12 Fa) So == s0, the legal issues, and also factual issues
13 in terms of the witnesses. So, the legal issues -- so, and |
14 there's an e-mail from [Jj based on the -- you know, the
15 contemporaneous record that alludes te some of this. In my
16 experience at the civil rights division, trafficking cases
17 involved -- you know, I can -- I can describe some -- some
18 horrific cases of girls being held against their will, you
| 19 know,
20 You had child pernography matters with young women,
21 sometimes incredibly young, that the office prosecuted. As
22 the trafficking laws were being developed, there was a lot of |
23 discussion about, what's the difference between trafficking
24 and solicitation, and that discussion took place as the
25 trafficking laws were being developed. &And so, this
00000 |

EFTA00009309


|
Page BZ
1 implicated that, and it implicated the =-- what is local and
2 what is federal.
3 Q All right. So, in the first, you're talking == in

4 the first category, you're talking about the individual

5 charges that had been -- that were being proposed, which

6 included both trafficking and coercion and enticement -- or,

1 enticement.

8 Rn Correct.

3S Q All right. And in the latter, you felt that -- did
10 you -- to what extent did the witness -- victim witness kind

11 of credibility issues implicate policy?

12 Rn S50 == s0, I think I said policy and victim in that.
13 Q All right.
14 RB In that there was certainly discussion between me

15 and my management about concerns as to how these victims
le would sort of stand up in court.

17 0 So, what would have -- what would make you

18 comfortable before -- before proceeding? What would make
19 you -- what at that point would have made you comfortable
20 about proceeding?

21 Rn So, I think that at this point, I don't think it's

22 what would or would not have made me comfortable, and I'm

23 speculating here. I think it's, it came in on Friday, let's

24 talk this through.

25 Q But there -- but you've just identified for us

EFTA00009310



10

11

12

13

14

lg

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 83

issues that --

2) Issues that --

Q -=— in your mind --

A -= we would have =--

Q == had to be resolved.

RB -- wanted to talk through.

Q All right. Okay. At that point, did you =-- to
your recollection, have any doubt that some form of

indictment or charging instrument against Epstein was likely

to be -- become viable?

A So, I don't -- it was a case that I thought it very

important that we do something. How that something played

out, I think had all along been a matter of discussion.

Q As something other than what the U.S. Attorney's
Office does, which is prosecute? |
A Well -- well, no, I mean, what the U.S. Attorney's

Office does is ensure that justice is served.

Q Right.
RB And whether -- and in partnership with state
attorneys, and sometimes that means state attorneys take the

lead. Sometimes that means the U.S. Attorney's Office takes

the lead, and it -- and a lot of times, we actually had, you |
know, we -- we would share staff, because sometimes it made
sense for -- you know, for one part of the other to take the
lead.

EFTA00009311


Page 84
1 So, writ large, I thought throughout it was very
2 important that something happen. There were these concerns
3 all along. I can speculate that this is just a reflection of
I 4 those continuing concerns.
3 Q As expressed by you to I ] in the ordinary
6 course?
7 A As developed as a group throughout this -- I can --
| 8 so, 1f we go back to -- what was the Exhibit?
8 Q June of =-- June of 2006,
10 2% So, Exhibit 3, [ says, "In that meeting, I
11 summarized the case and the state attorney's office handling
12 it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect
13 evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time
14 and money that would be required for an investigation." And
15 so, as far back as that initial meeting, there is the
16 discussion about the federal nexus, and is this a state or a
17 federal --
18 Q Right.
19 B -— case?
20 Q All right. Exhibit 7 is an early e-mail from [I
21 | tc you. Early, meaning it proceeds the one --
22 A Correct.
23 Q == we just locked at, and early in that it's right
24 as you're --
25 A Right.
SE _ _ EY

EFTA00009312


EEE — —— ———

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 85

Q == receiving the pros memo, and you ask him, have
you read the memo? And curious why you ask I I
rather than Ie I

B I don't recall. I can -- I can speculate, and I

have two thoughts that I'll speculate. One is, ] her

direct supervisor.

Q Mm =hmm .

pal And I might be thinking --

Q Second line supervisor.

A Her second line supervisor, so why is |] sending
me this? [[l}, have you read this? I.e., did you jump the
chain? Secondly, I think it -- I may have wanted to have

multiple opinions on this.

Q Mm-hmm .

A It's most likely that I had talked to J.
already, because [JJ and I talked more often, and I'm asking
another persen in the management chain, hey, what do you
think? Let's have multiple opinions on the table here.

Q Well, this is the first time other than [HEM that
we see you getting a recommendation.

: Right.

Q when [ll BB says, he thinks that you should
charge him =-- you, the cffice, should charge Epstein. He has
issues with the charging strategy proposed by I but

one, he says, "We all need to get on the same page as to

EFTA00009313


12

13

14

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

whether the statute's covered the conduct, and whether the

conduct is the type we should charge. I think the answer to

both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the
statutes." He proposes that the office start with a
complaint, which is not unusual, is it?

A It == it happens, yes.

Q All right, which allows the defendant to be
arrested, and ideally detained, and then the defendant is
then highly motivated or incentivized --

A Okay.

Q -- to work a pre-indictment resolution. That's
what [lll BB is proposing. He also notes that it's
important to == in his view, to "cap him with conspiracy
counts to make a plea attractive,” and the court could give
us a hard time with that if we had to dismiss indicted
counts.

A Right.

Q Okay. The proposed indictment included one

conspiracy -- a conspiracy that has a five year --
B Five year cap.
Q == statutory maximum, and this notion is that

Epstein be charged with a five-year conspiracy count, and
take it from there. Do you know what he was referring to

when he noted that a court could give you a hard time in

dismissing indicted counts in this case?

oe oe]

Page 86

EFTA00009314


o
Page B87

1 A S0 == 50, as a typical matter, once there's an

2 indictment, the -- a pre-indictment -- well, by definition, a |

pre-indictment resolution comes off the table, but in cases

Lad

4 of this nature, the resclutions tend to happen before

5 indictment, because once the indictment is done, at least in

6 South Florida, dismissal of charges -- for example, if -- you

7 know, if JJ} is saying, let's think about a 371 with a five

B year cap a rule 11 --

E) Q Mm -hmm .
10 FY == that's something that South Florida judges, they
11 tend not to -- you know, dismissing a number of counts, and
12 then doing a rule 11 is not something that judges tend to do.
13 Q All right. Twe == two pieces to that. One is --
14 A Okay.
15 Q == the issue of dismissing substantive -- |
| 16 A Right.
17 Q -- counts -- substantive counts. Is that -- was
18 that a particular concern in this case because of the nature
19 of the conduct represented in the =--
20 Fa) S50 --
21 Q == substantive counts?
22 A -- 50, 50, your question -- you asked a general
23 question, and then now you're moving to a --
24 Q Right. |
25 a == specific. As a general matter, not just in this
— SE SU |

EFTA00009315


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

23

Page B88

case, but in other cases, it is -- it was rare that the

office after an -- in cases like this, after a full charge
was done, that that substantive counts were dismissed. So,
for example, in the public corruption cases that I referenced
earlier out of Palm Beach, those were all negotiated pre-
indictment, and agreed to, and then by the time the =- the
case was indicted, it was all -- it was all sort of set on
auto-pilot.

Q So, typically, in my experience, the =-- a
disposition like that is -- results in a criminal
information, not an indictment.

2) Correct, and --

Q Are you saying that you would go ahead and indict
then?

A Ne, ne, no, what I'm saying is that they were -- it
was all negotiated in advance, and then there was an
information --

Q Ch, okay.

B == and the information would go forward, not an
indictment.

Q All right.

B And so, that is how a number of high profile cases
typically proceeded, as opposed to indict and dismiss.

Q And that is the experience of the Southern District

of Florida in general?

EFTA00009316



10

11

12

15

16

17

18

21

22

23

24

25

Page BO

2) It -- 1t was in particularly the Palm Beach office
with other high profile cases that were there at the time.
Q Do you recall any case in which a judge in an

indicted case refused to dismiss counts when the

government --
R Yeah.
Q == in an indictment under those circumstances?
A I don't recall specific cases, but I can -- I can

say that typically in the higher profile cases you'd
negotiated with opposing counsel, presenting information.
The information would have agreed to an agreed to guideline,
and it would proceed in that way.

Q Understood, but in this case, I'm focusing on the
assertion by Jl J that the court could give us a hard
time, and that's a little different from, you know,
exercising discretion to negotiate and proceed by
information. So, is there any judge that -- that was

particularly concerning with regard to an unwillingness to ==

A I ==

Q -= dismiss?

A I don't -=- so, first, this is 12 years ago, and I
don't recall any specific judge, but I can =- I can sort of

that say that was not the practice of the office. The

practice of the office was to proceed by information rather

than indictment with dismissal, because there is more --

—_———————— —_—————

EFTA00009317


Page B50

1 there is -- there -- you can -- you can -- you can lay out
2 more what you've negotiated. I think later there's a letter

| 3 from [Jj that sort of presents the same perspective.

4 Q@ All right. In -- |

5 MS. | E One moment?
6 MS. IHNEN Go ahead.

7 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
8 BY MS. [111 BE
Q You said in cases of this nature, the resolution

10 happens before indicting. What is the -- this cases of this

11 nature?

12 Rn Higher profile. Higher profile cases.
13 Q So, not necessarily sex offense cases?
14 RB Not necessarily sex offense, no, no, no, higher --

15 higher profile cases where --

16 Q And this made -- this was a higher profile case |

17 because --

18 A This was a -- just, a -- so, I would say it's a

19 combination of all of the above, and to my mind, one of
20 the -- one of the parts of this case is the legal theories

21 were, 1f not novel, they were novel within the Southern

22 District of Florida. At least, some of the legal theories,

23 and I -- we'll probably get into that.
24 Q Did his wealth make it a high profile case?

25 2) Well, it was clearly in the paper. And so, that

EFTA00009318


Ln

17

18

19

22

23

24

25

Page 91

made it a high profile case. I don't think it -- I don't
think it was his wealth. I think it was all of the above.
This was a matter that the state attorney had been ready to
charge that the federal government is now jumping inte and

saying, by its presence, that the state did not do encugh.

That in and of itself makes it a very high profile
case. I can't remember any other instance, certainly during
my time, when we jumped in and said, you know, the state
dropped charges, and so we are going to do more.

BY vs.

Q As opposed to, or as distinguished from what you'd

described a few moments ago, a situation in which the federal
authorities and the state authorities kind of worked together

to sort out what would be charged, where, and do it

cooperatively?
A And that was more cooperative, and I --
Q Right.
I == I would -- you know, I do recollect that -- and

I think the record bears this out, that this was not a

particularly cooperative relationship between us and the

state attorney.

Q Mm-hmm. Yes, we will get to that. Were you --

A If I could -- if I could return, I think your
question -- the way you posed your question, you said a
recommendation from [jj and let me -- let me push back a

— — EE ——

EFTA00009319


— —_— — |
Page 92
1 little bit on that.

2 Saying what are your thoughts? Have you read it,

3 what are your thoughts? And he says, yes, we can talk next
4 week, my current thoughts are -- is very different than,

| 3 we've sat down, we've discussed this, this is my now informed

& position.

Q Understood, and I =-- I should have been clearer. I
B was referring to his recommendation that if you were going to

I 9 proceed, you should start with a --

10 A Right.
11 Q -- complaint.
12 A Right.
13 Q Just to be clear.
14 A And I'm just saying --
15 Q Okay.
16 A -- initial thoughts are -- yeah.
17 Q All right. B8So, were you aware that I I

18 bootlegged a copy of the pros memo to a I at

19 CEOS?

20 A I was not.

21 0 He did at that time.

22 bh Okay.
| 23 @ And did you -- did you know [IN HIE

24 A A little bit. I certainly knew of him.

25 Q Had you encountered him when =-- he was the chief of
SE aaa

EFTA00009320


|

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

15

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 93
the child exploitation and obscenities section --
BE Right.
Q == in the criminal division here, correct? Had you
encountered him while you were in this building also?

A Most likely. I knew of him enough that the
correspondence shows -- and I recall asking to involve him
pretty early on.

Q So, it does read as if you were acquainted with
him.

Ah Yeah.

Q All right. And did you have any -- did his

opinion, his views as chief of CEOS and as |] HEE

who had been an AUSA --

A Right.

Q == in ==

A In Miami.

Q == Miami, did his views have influence on your

thinking about this case?

A I don't think at this time I was aware that 1
nad been consulted.

Q All right, and in July, just so you know, and I --
and this is not something you saw -- he provided a fairly
strong statement to =-- by e-mail to HEE BE oc

BE i» which he advises that he reviewed the pros memo

closely.

EFTA00009321


16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 94
It's terrific. He says [Ji] did a terrific job,

and he says, "we agree with her legal analysis. Her charging

decisions are legally sound," and then | ELSE
through the different statutes, and concludes that they are
all properly charged, and that although there are some
issues, legally, that in his view we should, "We should
prevail." "Our position should prevail."

And that he also reviewed the arguments contained
in the letters from defense counsel, and he found none of
their arguments persuasive. So, at least as of July 18,
your =--

A Right.

Q -- three levels of supervisors down were on notice
that CEOS was on board and wanted to --

B Right.

Q ~~ see the case move forward, but is it -- am I
correct in understanding that at that time, you were unaware
of that?

A I do not recall being aware of that.

Q All right. Okay. If you had been aware of it, if
they had sent this =--

3 Yeah.

Q == pretty -- I don't want to overstate it, but it

is a pretty strong endorsement of the proposed prosecution,

would you have been influenced by that?

EFTA00009322



11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 95
L Sure, I would have. I mean, I —- I respected ne

and clearly wanted him to be part of the team, and later
invited him down, and so, yes.

Q Okay. All right. Do you know why they wouldn't
have shared -- your people wouldn't have shared this with
you?

B I can't == I don't know.

Q All right. So, when -- as far -- based on the
briefings that you got at -- in this time period when there
was an effort to try to figure out --

A Right.

Q == what you were going to do, were there any issues
of concern of fact or evidence or the charges that were left
unaddressed? In other words, if there were issues about

victim credibility, were steps being taken to address those?

BL Unaddressed is a -- again, it =-- it's a very

binary, and it's not about addressed versus unaddressed. And
so, let me -- let me sort of come at it, if I can try to
get -- there were concerns around some legal issues. There
were concerns about how the victims would do when put on the
stand.

Q Right.

B As a general matter, we thought there was enough if
we had to go forward, we could, as an ethical matter, go

forward. That doesn't mean that there was not value in a

EFTA00009323


Page 96
1 pre-indictment resolution.
2 And so, here, you have I based on this Exhibit

3 7, saying, we need to get on the same page as to what to

4 charge, pre-indictment resolution, cap him with conspiracy

2 count to make up the attractive.

6 So, a five year cap, something less than five

7 years, you have [jj in her affidavit that was submitted to

8 the court saying she favored a pre-indictment resolution.
9 And so, it's not a, have you addressed everything, yes or no,

10 as opposed to putting all of this, how do we --

11 Q All right.

12 A == how do we move forward?

13 Q Right, but there is a binary point here, and that

14 is, you either indict or you don't indict. You either

15 present an indictment to the grand jury, or you doen't, right?
16 That's a decision. Right?

17 2) So, I would -- I would actually push back in that
18 in many cases, it's not quite that binary. In many cases,

19 you sit down with opposing counsel and say, look, we can go

20 to a grand jury, and we can present this indictment and

21 indict, or we can resolve this now. If we resolve this now,
22 this is the path that can go forward. Alternatively, we can
23 go here. And so, it's not an A versus B.

24 Q I understand that nuance, but the decision to

25 indiet does -- I mean, you either indict or you don't. If

I —

EFTA00009324



Page 97
1 you don't indict, it's for any number of reasons. If under
2 these circumstances, the choices that are available are you
3 have a case that's been brought in -- taken in from --
4 B Right.
| Q -- the state. You can -- you can decline it. Send
6 it back to the state, make it go away, whatever.
7 A Right.
8 Q We're not interested. You can indict. You can
9 indiet and go to trial. These are the subcategories. Or you
10 can indict and have the defendant plead to the indictment, or
11 you can indict and work a post-indictment plea deal, which
12 raises the issues you talked about, or you can negotiate
| 13 an == or you can charge -- proceed by complaint, and do as
14 0 BN +:s suggesting --
15 A Right.
16 Q -- work a pre-indictment but post charge
17 disposition, or you can work a pre-charge disposition, right?
18 I mean, that's really --
19 pil So, so =--
20 Q That's the parade of possibles.
| 21 B Sure, but that's more than indictment or don't
22 indict. That's six or seven options.
23 Q I understand that. That's how it will play out,
24 but the decision as to whether to indict is binary. You're
25 either indieting or you're not indicting. The -- the act of
| —— —— — SS

EFTA00009325


ee

Page 98

1 indicting is a -- is something that either happens or doesn't
2 happen. That's all I'm saying.

3 Ah Sure,

4 Q Okay? So, what I'm getting at is, with respect to
5 the indictment -- so, as you're locking at this case,

& you're -- it sounds as if you're doing sort of one analytical
7 track, which is, what do we do with this case? The other

8 piece of that, and a track that could have been followed

9 exclusively is, what do we need to do to get an indictment

10 that is legally sound and evidentiary -- evidentiarily solid?
11 I'd like to focus on that track --

12 A Okay.

13 Q -=- because they're not unrelated.

14 2) Sure.

15 Q If you never get down the, do we have a viable

16 indictment road, then you're not going to be able to do

17 anything in the other --

18 A Sure,

19 Q == road. So, at this point, you had identified,
20 and you collectively -- you and your people had identified
21 some witness -- victim witness issues, and some legal issues.
22 My question is, were steps being taken to -- I used -- I used

23 the term address --
24 A Right.
25 Q -- let me -- let me clarify, with respect to the
=

EFTA00009326



a0

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

15

20

21

22

24

25

_—

Page 99
witnesses, was the FBI and the line attorney with the

assistance perhaps of the grand jury, taking steps to

corroborate --
A Right.
Q == shore up victim witness testimony, find new

victims, find additional evidence, and so on?
A S0 == so, taking that in part is helpful. So, with

respect to the witness issues, I recall, and Bl ccc: into

much more detail in her affidavit, but I recall concerns that
were communicated to me about, in essence, to sort of
summarize my impression or recollection, these girls are
young.

They're impressionable. They are scared. Will
they stand up in court? There are any number of =-- there's
any number of things that could be used against them. Some
of them are -- and this is uncomfortable, but some of them

thought he actually cared for them, and that's not atypical

in these cases where they -- they sort of develop thoughts
that are wrong, but -- but they are what they are, and were
actually saying he did nothing wrong, and because many of
them knew one another, how would that all play out?

Q Right.

n And so, it would be my assumption, particularly
given, you know, how much work Hl +: doing on this

case -— Ms. J vas doing on this case -- that she, in

_|

EFTA00009327


Page 100

1 combination with the FBI, would be pursuing those matters,

2 and looking to develop the evidence and corroborate, and

3 throughout this process, it would have been my assumption and

4 hope that she was continuing to develop the facts, because

5 that can only help.

8 Q And so as U.S. Attorney, would it indeed have been

7 your expectation?

d 2) Yes, |
9 Q And the expectation that her -- that all those

10 interim supervisors would have been supporting her and
11 encouraging her and guiding her?

12 :) It would have been, and that -- that's what happens

13 in typical cases.
14 Q Right.
15 pa) Just because we're having a legal discussion

16 doesn't mean you stop pursuing leads.

17 Q All right. Let me stick with the evidence piece of
18 that.

19 A Yeah. |
20 Q I'm going to keep these --

21 A Helpful.

22 Q -- strains going. You got a very detailed

23 accounting in -- reflected in Exhibit 8 from I cof the

24 different Jane Does, and there were a lot of them, and there

25 were -- there were many counts in the indictment, and many

EFTA00009328
