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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 201 ranging scheme of predatory, my term, behavior regarding minor victims? A So, I don't recall a discussion around the Ashcroft memo. I would characterize what we did differently, in that there are any number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed, and state charges are substantially less and different, and on a fairly regular basis, the federal government allows the state -- not allows, but stands aside and lets the state proceed. Q But in this case, you actually had an active investigation that had been Proceeding for a year. A So, let's take the drug context, where there might be any number of active investigations where the federal charges can be rather substantial, but ultimately, the federal government says just let the state proceed with this, or violent crime cases where the federal government could bring gun charges using felon in possession or another mandatory minimum, but the state goes forward with -- so, in that sense -- Q But the state goes forward with what? A Forward with different charges that -- that have a lesser term. And so, I don't think it's unusual. We can talk about, you know, whether this was the best disposition or not, but I don't think it's unusual to have fact patterns that are under investigation that proceed in state court, EFTA00009017

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 202 | where the disposition is different than -- and would have been if it had proceeded in federal court. Q All right. Do you have anything on that? MMMM: On the two years, or something else? MEM: Xo. 9s I'm going back to the two ME: okay. oy a : Q Did you think -- did you believe at the time, if this was part of your thinking, that because it was so important to get sex offender registration, and even later developed damages -- monetary damages for the victims, under the state plea arrangement, that pretty much the only thing that the government had -- the federal government had to give up in this negotiation was jail time? If you wanted -- you wanted -- A Right. Q -- three things -- A Correct. Q -- you've said, jail time, sex offender status, and some kind of restitution or damages -- A Right. Q -- mechanisms. Sex offender registration, there's no -- really no give there. You either register or you don't. I'm being binary -- EFTA00009018

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 204 those two years. Q Right, so you -- when you say, I thought the two years was the right amount, is that based on your understanding that that's what he would have gotten in the state? A Correct. Q All right. A That -- and the point I'm trying to convey there is that this wasn't, to my understanding, a random number, but it was informed by, this is what he would have received, and therefore it is a reasonable -- agree or disagree with the analysis, but it was an informed number to begin with. a Q But you don't recall how that analysis was done, or who conducted -- A i= Q -- that analysis? -- don't recall that. , a Or even whether it was accurate, actually? I -- again, I don't recall that. All right. 2’ as: And I understand the explanation. Right. EFTA00009020

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 207 one single overt act in the government's conspiracy, and doesn't that really show what is going on here, that what the state had done was really just a small, minor part of this scheme that the federal government had a -- A Right. Q ~~ had a real opportunity to punish him for this entire course of conduct? A So, possibly, but if I can circle back to your question previously, it's interesting that you characterize this as, he's turning these girls into prostitutes, and then I think that's really interesting, because in 2019, 13 years afterwards, despite all the changes in the law, there is still some element somewhere that says he's turning these girls into prostitutes, whereas this was a typical trafficking case of the kind that you'd see in the Lou De Baca days where, you know, it was called modern day slavery. That's a very different fact pattern. So, you know, a girl that's held captive, is forced to service multiple men per day, where this is part of an ongoing business arrangement. And so, I hear what you're saying, but if here at this table at least some element of that characterization is live, what would it mean in 2006 when these laws are still being developed? And that consideration, rightly or wrongly, was part of this analysis. EFTA00009023

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 208 Q Was it explicitly -- in other words, was -- was that aspect of it, the -- I -- the perception that this was perhaps activity that -- in which the victims cooperated? Was that part of the -- A No, no. Let me -- let me distinguish. I didn't say the perception that this was activities in which the victims cooperated. What I was going to -- what I -- and I've gone to before is, would jurors -- is there at least one juror that might say, look, we've got conflicting victim testimony. Some of them said he did nothing wrong. They all knew each other. They kept going back and taking payment. Is this trafficking, or is this prostitution? I'm not -- I'm not saying I agree with that, and I don't think -- I don't think prosecutors do, I'm saying is there -- is there at least a possibility of that? And -- Q Was that articulated to you by the people you were listening to by MMMMNNNNNE ana -- A So -- ° -- a A So, that certainly was part of the discussions when I talk about the victim issues, would at least some jurors view it that way, rightly or wrongly? Q And you recall having that -- those -- EFTA00009024

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 209 Q -- conversations? A I recall having not only how would the witnesses stand up in court, but how would jurors view them? And then the second part of that is, as it goes up in the appellate process with respect to the -- the federal nexus. And so, I hear you, but you know, I -- it's -- it's sort of one of the factors. And so -- oy a : Q And so -- A Yeah. Q -- what I'm getting though is that there didn't seem like there was a consideration or discussion about, is this two years capturing the scope of his conduct, versus, we're just going to tie it to this potential state crime that could have been charged? A Fair, and I would -- I would say that the two years was not meant -- so, the petite policy has several prongs, and to my recollection, the petite analysis was not based on -- and let's not even call it petite analysis. That overstates it. But it was much more of a, is this a manifest injustice, and -- and if the original -- and so, you sort of see it in the Exhibit 3. This would not have been brought to the office in the first place if -- you know, if he had plead to jail time and registration, and rightly or wrongly, that EFTA00009025

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 210 was understood from the very beginning of the case, and was a factor in how the case was viewed. Q And how do you know that it wouldn't have -- that MRMBEMMEEMME wouldn't have been upset with a minimal jail time, even if there was sex registration? A So, I can't 12 years later say how we knew that. I can say that my -- my general impression was that this was proceeding at the state, that there were certain charges, and that those charges changed when it went to a grand jury, and that it went from -- I think they even changed the ASA involved. ER: bey ia. THE WITNESS: I can't speak for certain, but you probably have that from the record, and that when they changed the ASA involved and took it to grand jury, the charges that came back were substantially less. 2 aT Q Do you remember the circumstances? Did you know the circumstances under which that ASA was changed? A I don't know. Q All right. The -- by the way, do you remember an occasion in which MJ came to your office in Miami to press you on what was going to be happening with the federal case? A I don't recall. EFTA00009026

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

You don't recall. MEREEMMN: Ss Sust one more, ME: vee. THE WITNESS: Yeah. oy a : So, before we Yeah. -- leave this Yeah. Q -- one little thing. So, if this case had come the federal system as apart from the -- A Right. Q -- taken the digression through the -- A Right. Q -- state system, do you think that the two years was an appropriate punishment, given the scope of his conduct? A I think if it had come into the federal system apart from the whole state and the petite considerations and all that, we may have ended up in a different place. I viewed the two years, to my recollection, as a manifest injustice standard, and not an appropriate punishment standard. Q Meaning whether it was manifestly unjust that he get two years? EFTA00009027

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 214 Q And are you including this petite policy in your consideration of the legal issues? A Yes. Yeah. I think those are all tied together. 2, TT So, you mentioned victim -- But -- but could I -- could I -- Yes. But to clarify, I thought we had sufficient forward so it wasn't an ethical violation to proceed. Q Mm-hmm. Okay. The victim -- you mentioned the victims coming into state court, and you talked about all the victims coming into state court. Do you have any idea what victims formed the basis for the original charge that -- A I do not. Q -- he was indicted on? Do you know whether it was one -~- was it a felony assault pros of a non-minor. A Mm-hmm. Q It could have been -- it was three instances to felonize it. You don't know whether it was one person three times, three people? A I do not. Q And you don't know whether that person was a minor or not? A I do not. Q@ All right. EFTA00009030

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 215 A I would assume they were, but I do not. Q Likewise, do you know who was the victim, or who the victims were who formed the basis for the 796.03 charge to which Epstein ultimately pled in June of 2008? A I did not at the time. I've read various accounts of that, but that's based on matters that I've read and not an independent recollection. Q And what's your understanding? A My understanding is that there's some -- that there is at least some issue in the media over whether the -- the right or the best victims were chosen from the prosecution's perspective. Q And do you know -- was there any indication of who the victims were? Do you know who the victims were who were the subject of the state charges? A Which particular names? No, Q Right, I'm not asking you -- Yeah. -- other than names -- A Yeah. Q ~- I just want to know if you know who they are or how many they were. A I -- I do not. Q Right, it could be one, right? For this -- for the solicitation. It could be one conceivably. Both the charges EFTA00009031

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 217 the team by Ng. A Yeah. Q With your knowledge and approval, right? Because he wouldn't do it otherwise. Is that right? A Fair. Q Though at least one was surprised. Do you know what drove the timing of the plea offer? In other words, why did it have to be made at that point? A I do not. Q Okay. You know that MM supmitted his resignation on the 23rd of July. A I saw that in the -- Q Right. A -- in the -- in the documents. Q In the documents, and he submitted that to you among other -- as well as the -- A Yeah. Q ~~ HR people. Why not -- well, then there was a July 3lst meeting at which the term sheet was presented. This document 15 is the term sheet that was presented, as HMMM indicates in her September 6th cover note -- cover e- mail. And you said you approved it. You happen to be copied Right. -- though -- EFTA00009033

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 218 Let me -- Q -- forwards this, but -- A Let me -- let me be -- let me be accurate. I approved these terms, whether it was this specific term sheet or another -- another document that might have been earlier that looked highly similar to this. My recollection is approving a, a -- you know, approving a resolution that had him pleading to certain state counts that had a binding two-year plus recommendation that - - and that provided for 22.55 restitution. Q Right, but you don't know if it was this sheet of I can't say 12 years after the fact whether it was this specific sheet -- Right. -- or -- All right. ~- or others. I -- based on the fact that this was in the e-mail, I think it's safe to -- to assume, but -- Q To assume what? A To assume that it was this. Oh. But it's possible that there was as slight EFTA00009034

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 219 difference in -- Q All right. In fact, this -- this same document with a couple of -- A Right. Q -- additional bullets that had to do with the date of entry of the plea, sort of ministerial, is what was prepared by MN MBB on or about the 31st -- on or before the 3lst of July, and this document, as indicated -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- here, along with the attached guidelines calculation is what was provided to the folks who met on the 31st -- A Fair. Q -- of July. Okay. So, on that 31st, it was || MMBMM, Jerry Lefcourt, BEBE sanchez, and the purpose of the meeting with Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Hin as well as the case agents was to present the plea offer. And did you get briefed on how that plea offer went? A I don't recall being briefed, but in the regular course, I would have been. Q All right, and at that meeting, there was an expression of concern by the defense team that Epstein wanted to avoid being incarcerated in the state system because of concerns for his physical safety, and that concern was | accommodated to the extent that the U.S. Attorney's Office I EFTA00009035

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 220 team agreed to explore federal resolution. How does that Square with your decision that a state plea is how this case was going to be -- A Right. Q -- decided? A So, I think I indicated later that it's a little bit more fluid than a decision here or a decision -- you know, than binary situations. My recollection is we were very focused on, this man should go to jail, and this man should register. The two year plea to the state charges seemed reasonable and seemed a way to go. We can agree or disagree. Reasonable in terms of -- not in terms of, was it the -- the most just outcome, but seemed like a disposition that we would agree to. But ultimately, the focus was on getting him to jail, and if that meant exploring a 371, it's at least worth exploring. And so, I don't think it was inconsistent, because the focus really was on, he needs to go to jail. Q Okay. In this case, that -- that push back of the -- that resulted -- A Right. ~~ in the agreement to explore a federal plea -- Right. -- was because Epstein was afraid to be in prison. EFTA00009036

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 221 Why would the U.S. Attorney's Office accommodate that? And here, we're getting to -- we're beginning to talk about a major point of criticism of this whole process and the outcome and that is that it appeared that the U.S. Attorney's Office was bending over backward to accommodate the concerns of Jeffrey Epstein, and in this case, he was uncomfortable going to a federal or state prison, but all child sex predators who go to prison are going to face some -- A Yeah. Q -- challenges, right? A Right, and I remember along the way a heavy push that he be incarcerated at this home under some kind of home confinement, and my reaction to that was no way. Q Right. A And okay, you don't like prison, but that doesn't mean you get to be incarcerated in your house. Q Mm-hmm. A Which is interesting, because subsequently -- Yeah. And so -- Because subsequently, what? You might as well Well, because -- -- that. ~~ subsequently, the way that the state executed EFTA00009037

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 222 the terms of incarceration were not what I would have expected. And so, again, the focus from my perspective is, he needs to go to jail. If the team agreed to explore it, you know, the 371 was on the table to the extent we had been -- I'm speculating now. This is not to make the record clear. Q Mm-hmm. Thank you. A I'm speculating, not recalling. I can speculate a 371 with a two year rule 11 had been discussed based on the contemporaneous record, and so, to the extent it had already been discussed, even if it was not the direction we were taking, would it have been unusual for folks in the room to say, well, look, we've discussed that, let's go back. You know, let's see where it goes. I can't fault -- to the extent it had been discussed -- I can't fault anyone for Saying, let's go back and look at it. I think that's distinguishable at least from subsequent Q All right. At that point, the defense was given two weeks to take it or leave it, and if not, you would indict, and there were several occasions -- A Correct. Q -- when that kind of ultimately was made. Did that mean -- I mean, given all of your concerns about barriers to what you would consider a successful federal prosecution, was that a bluff? | | EFTA00009038

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 224 A Right. Q Okay. Looking at lla, this is a letter that MMMM crafted to sort of actually respond to a counteroffer by the defense. The counteroffer is represented in Exhibit 10b, which is a letter from BBM sanchez which we don't need to go into in detail, because as you've already pointed out, essentially it was a home confinement, and you know, very, very soft -- A Yeah. Q -- landing counteroffer. In lla, EI tweaks | letter, you're copied on this, and the date is August 2, Thursday, and he notes that he hadn't discussed it in detail with you, but he wanted to -- he hoped that tomorrow, Friday the 3rd -- A Right. Q -- he'd have a chance to, and what's notable here is that -- is that the -- there's strong language that the “Office believes that the federal interest would not be vindicated in the absence of a two year term of state imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a starting point for negotiation. It is the minimum term of imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution." A You're on paragraph two? Q One. EFTA00009040

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 225 One, yes. Oh, two. Yeah. It's the first -- A Right. Q -- long paragraph. And then he also states that -- that you in the last paragraph -- the U.S. Attorney, "U.S. Attorney Acosta has asked me to communicate that the two year term of incarceration is non-negotiable." A Yes. Q That's pretty firm. That's a -- that's a line -- It is. -- in the concrete that is setting, right? Right. And 11b is the letter as it actually went out the And it's got the same language. It's identical. It has the same language. It has one typo corrected. This is HR last day in the office. A Yes. Q And he's gone after that. Do you think that this was an -- the appropriate timing to extend this offer, or to set this as the minimum offer, or was it something that you would've liked to have seen more fully developed in EFTA00009041

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

happened. Q All right. A That's just a lot of hypotheticals. Q Understood. The question though is whether Matt Menchel, who was the author -- A Right. Q -- of this, who first raised it -- Right. -- with QJ sanchez -- A Yeah. Q -- in an informal discussion, and who presented it to the U.S. Attorney's Office team, was this really his baby? A I can't -- Q Approved by you. A I can't -- I don't remember who I talked to about what, and so it wouldn't be fair for me to -- you know, I can't single out any one person as having a greater or lesser role. Q Well, you were not the architect of this, right? You approved it as you've described it. A No, I haven't said I wasn't the architect. What I said is I don't recall -- Q Right. A I recall approving it. You know, I -- I think what I'm trying to convey is these discussions are much more fluid EFTA00009043.

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 230 that's not appropriate language -- who impressed me significantly. He had inherited a case, and it was a fraud case, and the -- the bigger players had been charged, and he was basically given a lesser player to -- to basically just finish up on, right? It was a done deal. The person was ready to plead to some minor count, no jail time, and he felt uncomfortable with it, and went to his supervisor, and then ultimately came up to me, and I had a discussion with this person about it, and it ended up with my telling him to go back and call the defense counsel and tell them we were dropping the case. Q Mm-hmm . A Which, for a new AUSA in the office is pretty gusty and unusual, but if this person really felt that this lesser player wasn't deserving, then that was the right thing to do. y g Right. And so, I don't -- and the person was not punished Mm-hmm. If anything -- Mm-hmm . -- you know, I recounted that story to others. Okay. A question, shifting gears -- Yeah. EFTA00009046

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 233 Q Okay. After (MMMM letter went out on the 3rd of August, you almost immediately -- it appears you received a telephone call from Kirkland & Ellis, is that correct? A That -- I don't recall it independently, but that's what the record shows. Q All right, and that's reflected in Exhibit 12. Do you remember who called you? A I do not. Q Do you recall -- it apparently was from the context of this Exhibit 12, it -- and the caption, Epstein. A Right. Right. Q It appears that the call related to Epstein, correct? A Correct. Again, I don't remember the phone call, but from the e-mail, I accept that it happened. Q So, what had been your knowledge and relationship of -- with Ken Starr of Kirkland & Ellis -- A Right. Q -- up to this point? A So, I had been an associate at Kirkland, I think I indicated, what was it -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- from '94 to '90 -- what was it? Was it '96 or EFTA00009049

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 234 Q A couple of years. A For a couple of years. I worked on at least one case that I recall with him. I was the junior associate on a merits brief that he argued. He, at the time, was also special counsel. And so he wasn't in the office nearly as much because he was double hatting as special counsel -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- and partner. Q Mm-hmm. All right, and what about [BRE A So, WIM was @ partner at the time. 1 don't recall working with him on any particular case, although I think I worked with him on at least a matter. He was on my hallway. He had an outside office. I had the typical inside office. Q Had you had any interaction -- any contact with them in the intervening years, socially or professionally? A Off and on, I was in Washington. They -- you know, Ken Starr was in Washington. I think [J had moved to New York but then came back to Washington to be in the administration, and he was in the policy office, and we may have -- not may have. We likely interacted. Q And while you were here at the criminal -- at the civil rights division? A Correct. Q All right, and did you -- were you friends? Were EFTA00009050

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 235 you professional acquaintances? Were you what? How would you characterize that? A We were professional acquaintances that had worked together several years ago that continued to interact. Q Is that true as to the two of them? A I mean, it's hard to characterize these things. I think -- I think that's fair to say. Q Did Ken Starr know who you were? A Yes, Q And obviously Pet ty as well? A Yes. Q Okay. So, what was your reaction to being contacted by them in -- by their firm, them, presumably one of -- A Right. -- them perhaps? So -- In -- So, I don't know who called based on the e-mail. I can infer that it was one of them. Q Mm-hmm . A And you know -- and I think my reaction is captured by not my e-mail, but -- but by Jeff's comment, and what -- I don't have a clear recollection, but I'm going to speculate/infer that I heard they were being brought onto the EFTA00009051

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 236 case, and I probably walked down to Jeff's office and said, hey, Kirkland's coming onto the case, I bet you they're going to come on to try to take this up to D.c. And then I get a phone call, and -- you know, and then I tell Matt, who tells Jeff, you know, I didn't know, maybe -- Kirkland made a call to -- you're right, unbelievable. And then I say they're likely to go to D.c. We should strategize a bit. My concerns behind that are, will D.C. look at this as sort of legally troubled, going back to the earlier points that I made about the policy issues around the trafficking issues up here in D.c. Q Mm-hmm. A And I really do think he should go to jail. And so, I want to strategize a bit. Q So, did you have concern about the fact that you were -- that the defense team was sort of appealing you to the big house? A I think based on this, I almost predicted this would happen. Q Yeah. A And Jeff is saying, you were right, unbelievable, where I in some way, shape, or form predicted that something would -- someone would be hired, or something would happen to take this all up to D.c. EFTA00009052

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 237 Q And had you experienced other cases -- other instances in which defense team went to D.C. while you were at U.S. Attorney's Office -- while you were the U.S. Attorney? A Yes. Q Was that a concern to you? A It wasn't a concern. It was a, how do we address this so that we can back our position and our office. Q Did you have concerns about the disposition that was underway? About -- main justice scrutiny of the NPA scheme? A So, I had no concerns about main justice scrutiny of the NPA scheme. In fact, I invited Drew to come down -- Q Right. A -- and he was part of the meeting where we discussed the NPA. And so, I Say that because if I had concerns, I wouldn't have invited him. If anything, my concern was, is main justice on board, or are we going to basically be told to drop this case when it goes up to main justice? Q Mm-hmm. In your e-mail to ii} Ti dg when Sloman's on vacation -- A Yeah. Q “~ you say that -- you make reference to a process foul, that the attorneys in the defense team want to go to EFTA00009053

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 242 if we need to -- if we don't come to a resolution based on the sheet, then we indict. Q And there is a letter of -- 5 a: Q I'm sorry, when you say some concern, some concern about the federalism argument? A Yeah. Going -- going back to what we talked about with respect to the earlier conversation about solicitation versus trafficking, and the federal nexus. But back in July, we had decided that we were going forward, that either there is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an indictment. The September meeting did not alter or shift our position. , aT Q Even though you had some federalism concerns of your own, they didn't rise to a sufficiently high level. A So, their request -- their request was to drop the matter. Q Right. A And -- and -- Q Okay. A -- going back again, understood. There is -- there is legal risk. There is witness risk. All of these. If we can get pre-indictment resolution, good. If not, the indictment was not a bluff. It was -- it was real. EFTA00009058

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 249 sandbox in which both the defense -- local defense counsel and the ASAs were very comfortable? A Possibly, although I would point out that it was the AUSA who got it right. Q Eventually. A Not eventually. The AUSA -- Oh. -- was correct in her analysis. Right. So, in this case, she was more familiar than state attorney. Q Not by practice, but by research, or -- A By research, and so -- Q Right. A -- my point is we had good people that were able to, if they weren't familiar with something, the research clearly worked. Q But it took, as you saw in the -- in the -- in the process of dealing with the work release and all of that, it took a lot of -- A It «- -- work to keep up with those -- It did. -- errors. Which is why I say in hindsight, if, given EFTA00009065

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 253 line. They're the ones that are managing the case, and it's sort of unfair to consistently second guess those late night -- I don't -- I don't want to characterize it -- Q Okay. A -- as a late night negotiation, but those -- that give and take that happens sometimes in a conference room or on the phone. Q Do you know exactly what give and take occurred in this case regarding the 18 months? A Ido not. I read that one document. Okay. But I do not. All right. Any other questions on this one? oy i: Q Really quick. I agree with what you're saying in principle, but in this case, you had had a -- almost like a mandatory, two years is the minimum that the -- A Right. Q ~- U.S. Attorney will accept. Under those circumstances, where you have come out and said, this is the minimum we'll accept, would you have expected them to have to come back to you to get approval for any kind of reduction in that amount? A Would I have expected them? I think Ms. ERIM was in a tough position, because opposing counsel was coming EFTA00009069

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 256 about later on. I mean, they -- they continually griped about the 22.55, and that got -- you know, that got modified. A Later on -- and I think later on's are different for some reasons we can talk about now or later, but there was an attempt to work this out later on that was clearly there. THE WITNESS But I think that's very different than, how was the agreement negotiated? And I think that's a very different -- a different sort of timeline. , Q So in your mind, was she prepared to walk away from the deal if need be? A After it was signed? Q Before it was signed. A Before it was signed, it honestly was, get a deal or ultimately if we have to indict, we indict, and that's what I said, and -- and look at it this way. After having said that, if that really was a bluff, what would I look like, right? I would look awful. And so, for that reason, that was not a bluff. That was a thought through, this is what we will do, and if you don't agree to this, then we indict, and we indict. You can't make those kinds of statements and not follow through. The office loses credibility if you do. EFTA00009072

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 258 -- beyond that. Okay. So, 29 is -- I'm sorry, I'm on 21. Q Wait a minute, this is not the one I'm looking for. 73? Let's do -- do you know what? Okay. That's not -- this is not the exhibit I'm looking for, and the numbers are a little bit messed up. There is a -- an e-mail, which I may or may not be able to put my hands on -- in which ERD incorms you that she really wants to get her hands on important potential -- on computer evidence, that it's important potential evidence, and she had a plan to get it. So, the question is whether you knew at the time that there was -- that the investigators had identified this computer evidence as being out there, and that they believed it contained a potentially very significant evidence against Epstein, computers, surveillance cameras, given his activity -- A Right. Q -- in his home -- MMMM: e's not on it. Sy a: Q All right. She did not inform you. She informed someone else that we -- she informed Sloman and Menchel on July 3rd, and Lourie. My apologies. You're not on this. EFTA00009074

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 260 Q The question was whether you were aware that that was something that the prosecutors wanted to get? A I don't -- I don't have a recollection of some computer evidence. All right, and -- and -- But I think -- is there? Are you -- What was the question? Q -- aware that IMJ was instructed by her managers to delay her efforts to get this computer evidence, because the defense were resisting those efforts, and it became an issue of -- an issue that was in play in the negotiations? A I have -- I have no recollection of that. Q Okay. A If you can give me one second? Q Sure. A Pending federal -- and so, your question said that there was litigation pending in federal court relating to the U.S. Attorney's efforts to obtain -- Q Yeah. A -- computer evidence? Q Without going into further detail. A I -- I have no recollection of any litigation pending in federal court regarding that. Q All right, and were you -- did anyone suggest EFTA00009076

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 262 served. Do you -- so, these all would have been steps taken by the FBI to enhance the federal investigation, right? As opposed to back to the state -- A Right. Q “~~ case that this was sort of -- Yeah. -- being returned to. Right. Was this -- MR. TODD: Are you asking Alex if he's aware of all the things you just said? , a Q Were you aware of all -- of being foregone, or foreclosed? those steps that were A No. My -- my assumption would have been, we may have to go to trial, and so we should basis for trial. So, if I could, for after Drew came down, I said if we go the trial team? I cite that, because have to go to trial. Q Right. A Why not get Drew who's from team? continue to develop the example, I think I -- to trial, can you be on I'm thinking, we may Miami on the trial Q So, is it -- is it your understanding that the federal investigation, notwithstanding the drafting of this EFTA00009078 |

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 263 NPA, was still continuing? A Yes. We -- you know, my understanding is you run these on parallel tracks, and again, I'm -- I'm sitting here inviting the head of CEOS to be part of the trial team, and talking about how to formulate the trial team. Q Okay. A That -- that implies that I was clearly thinking we might be going to trial. Q All right. When you first received the draft of the non-pros agreement, and this is 16a, it's a draft by | | ti‘(ié‘@R Do you know who came up with the -- the -- it sounds like you didn't, but who came up with the name or the moniker non-prosecution agreement? A I do not. Q Do you know what this was modelled on, if anything? Where it -- A i -=- Q What the genesis was? A Ido not. I noticed from the contemporaneous e- mails that initially it was done differently, and I think it was | | Lourie who said write it as a contract, or I think there is -- there is an e-mail to that effect. Someone may recall it better than I, but -- Q This version of September 10, which is the first business day after that -- EFTA00009079

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 265 Q -- that. So, my point is that right from the beginning, you were participating in the process -- in the drafting process. A Oh. So -- so, I would -- I would characterize that as not participating in the drafting process, but approving a draft. There is -- there is a -- Q slight -- I did a small -- difference. Q rewrite. A Yeah. And so, something comes -- here's how I would distinguish. Someone that's participating in the drafting process is sitting at the table with two or three people, drafting it as they go, versus something goes through the management chain, and someone in the supervisory chain says, can you change A, B, or C? Q All right. A I -- I clearly -- you know, here and in other places, it looks like I'm inserting the same themes, which is deferring to the state -- let's mention the state charges -- Mm-hmm. -- and we can't force the state to do anything. -- I'm adding to this. I'm clearly aware of it and EFTA00009081

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 267 on notice that they're being difficult? A I -- I -- that's fair. Q Okay. In the course of that being difficult, 19a is an e-mail to you from on September 18 in which she represents that -- or, explains that the defense is -- is -- that things are kind of falling apart with the negotiations, and she fears the deal is going to fall apart completely. MR. TODD: Should we take a quick break here? You're losing your voice. ES: «i'm fine. MR. TODD: You could probably use a minute. ee : All right. We'll take a break. THE WITNESS All right. : «A four minute break. MR. TODD: Four minutes, that's -- CE: okay. (Off the record.) ay ae: Q Back on the record. Looking at Exhibit 19c, you Say -- you write to | fC regarding whether you're available to -- at a time when she's going to be hashing out language. You advise her that -- but I -- "I don't think I should be part of negotiations. I'd rather leave that to you if that's okay." EFTA00009083

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 268 Q Why did you say that to her? A Because she was the line lawyer involved, and I thought -- I think it's important for a U.S. Attorney to, absent truly exceptional circumstances, to not get involved in sort of the negotiations. You can meet, like I did in September, reaffirm the position of the office, back your AUSA, but ultimately, I think your trial lawyer needs discretion to do their job. Q At this point, of course we know HEI is on vacation. A Right. Q And you were aware, were you not, that || Lourie was about to decamp for Washington? In other words, he left at the end of September -- A Yes. Q -- to become the chief of staff and principle deputy, assistant attorney general -- A Correct. A Yes. Q ~- who headed the criminal division. Okay, so it was really just the two of them at this point, and with nobody apparently involved between them and you. A So, fair, but when you Say just the two of them, MMMM is an incredibly experienced lawyer. So, to say just EFTA00009084

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

the two of them is not to take -- not -- should not that there was an experience in that -- Q I-- A -- table. I certainly in no way intended to -- Right. == ¢t9 == Fair. -- suggest that. A Fair enough. Q Looking at 19d, in which | | | is on page two, looking at the latest draft from | - meaning || a. and this is in the -- in the -- in the throes of negotiating the NPA. || | is essentially telling you he agrees with | observations that the defense are just up to all kinds of nonsense in this deal, and constantly changing their terms, and just not apparently negotiating or dealing with these warring drafts with the drafting process in good faith. Again, that's my characterization, but | says to you in this e-mail, "I suggest we simply tell him, WS) stat his counteroffer is rejected, and that we intend to move forward with our case." Right? And then your response is interesting. You say to him, why don't we just -- why don't we just call him? Tell him, one, you EFTA00009085

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 270 agree, and then change things. Two -- A You being || agrees and changes things? Q Correct. Tell him you agree, meaning, || agrees? No. No. I see. Yeah. Tell him -- Tell him, you, i. agree, and you change things. I see. That is not acceptable to us, and is in bad faith. Stop it, or we'll just indict, and then try to work it out. Q So, is the try to work it out -- if the -- if numbers one and two are what you should tell -- what | | should tell a. is number three something | | should tell J, or what you're telling Je try to work it out? A It's what I'm -- what I'm -- what I'm telling i. Q Okay. So, just to be clear, you say, tell him, meaning you, J, tell Jay, number one -- A So -- Q -- and number two, but number three is then what you're instructing || to do? I -- A Yes. Q -- I'm just trying to understand. Yes. So -- EFTA00009086

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 271 Q Okay. A So, my understanding of this is, they're being difficult. Hey, this isn't the first time that an attorney agrees to something and then goes back and tries to pulla fast one. So, tell him you're onto this, that they need to stop it, or we'll indict, but then that we'll try to -- you know, [BJ should try to work it out. Q Okay. A But they need to stop this tactic. Q Did you really think that was going to be effective with this defense -- A I don't know. Q -- team? A You know, I think one of the hard things with this is, if it was right on September 6th, it remained right, irrespective of really -- I think I say, sorry, I know it's a pain. Q You do. A This negotiation was a pain, but if it was the right position, the fact that you've got annoying counsel on the other side doesn't it make it less of a right position. You tell them stop being annoying, you try to work it out, and if not, then you indict. Q All right, and is that sort of -- A You had a question? EFTA00009087

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 276 Q -- the NPA, because you did make -- let me -- let me make sure that this is correct -- a : You skipped this one. SY a : Q Oh yeah, before that -- thank you, my colleague reminds me 19e is an exhibit that has a -- an exchange between you and MMMM Lourie about the -- at a time when the plea agreement -- the federal plea agreement -- A Right. Q -- was still in play, and the issue is whether you should sign it, and -- A Right. Q -- you didn't want to, because you never do, but you say at the bottom, we should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement. What did you mean by that? The -- the first part of it? A So -- so, what I meant by that was I got something that the -- that is -- the document was unusual. So, my signature appearing on this document is not in and of itself unusual. Q And this would have been the plea agreement -- not the federal plea agreement, not the -- or was this about the NPA? This was about the NPA. Okay. EFTA00009092

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 277 A Right, and so the NPA had my signature. Now, the NPA's almost too generous. Q Mm-hmm. A So, that in and of itself is not indicative of something, but it does raise my concern. Is this something that ultimately the trial team does not feel comfortable with? And if it's something they don't feel comfortable with, then they should speak up and let me know, because we shouldn't go forward with it. Q And did you ever have a conversation or a discussion about that issue, other than mentioning it? A Not -- not to my recollection. I would -- Q Okay. A -- assume based on this that HMMM would read it and would take me at my word and say, look, if -- I think you're going in the wrong direction, Alex. You know, I think you're going in the wrong direction, or I'm uncomfortable with it. Q Okay. All right. ’ a: Q Did you ever have a direct conversation with Hall HMMM 2bowt wanting her to sign the agreement as opposed to yourself? A I -- I did not. This was my -- my communications with JBM. and -- and I really meant that if at the end of the day, my team isn't comfortable, then you shouldn't go EFTA00009093

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 278 forward. Q You never recall hearing from Bll that she was not comfortable moving forward with the plea agreement? Sy as : Q The NPA? A I did not hear -=- I don't recall hearing from | that she was not comfortable. I know that at various points she became frustrated. At various points, || became frustrated, but they were negotiating this. If at some point they did not -- they thought this was a mistake, or wrong, or unjust, I would think that they would tell me. Q What would you have done? A Sit down and really have a serious conversation about where this is going, and sit down and hear them out, again, even if -- at this late phase. Q Right. A Would be -- I would -- I would think that that's what I would have done. Q All right. Let's turn to the NPA. What is it? Exhibit 22? Did you read it? We know that you made some final tweaks to it. 22. A So Q Is the final -- as signed -- A 22. And so, I would -- again, I don't have an independent recollection of reading it. I would not have EFTA00009094

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 279 made tweaks to it without reading it. Q Okay. A And so, I think you can infer that I read it. Q All right, and let me say, you -- you were clerk to an appellate -- a very eminent appellate judge, and you did -- did you do appellate work -- A I did. Q “-- yourself? So, you were somebody who's an appellate lawyer, who has that experience at a high level, is often more sensitive to words, and phrasings, and to documents, contents, than might be, again, to be -- to caricaturize a little bit, but a more of a shoot from the hip trial attorney who spends his days, you know, in a -- ina rough and tumble courtroom, and is it fair to say that you were more of the former, and more -- A So, I would push back. I think that's not respecting the talent of the trial lawyer, and particularly on these types of agreements or documents, these are folks that sort of have expertise, because even if this was sui generis, they have seen a lot of this. Q I am not suggesting that J EB anc Bg Lourie -- A Right. Q -- were not up to this. Right. EFTA00009095

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 281 responsibility for his behavior by his signature on this agreement." A I'm sorry, you're on 16b? Q 16b. A Okay. It appearing, yes. Q Okay. So, his is -- and this is not -- I mean, this seems to be fairly typical sort of plea agreement language, right? A Yeah. Q And if you look at the top of the final NPA, 22, the third, it appearing clause -- A I'm sorry. Where -- Fine. -- where are you? 16b. Right. Has -- The third, it appearing? It appearing he has -- the -- down at the bottom. Yeah. It says -- refers to at the -- It has accepted responsibility. -- second up. Yes. Exactly. He's accepted responsibility. EFTA00009097

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 283 these were the terms. Does this encompass those terms? Q So, as that concession is not something material as far as -- I don't want to use the legal term material, but it wasn't important -- A So -- so -- Q to your objectives? A So -- Q Is that right? A First, I'm not sure -- so, it wasn't a concession from that -- that -- those four bullets, right? It was a concession from an earlier draft. Q Right. A And so to say it's not important is, again, there was an early draft. It changed. The focus was in any give and take, drafts change. The focus was, did he go to jail? Did he have to register? Did we have restitution? Q All right. oy a: Do you remember noticing that change, and thinking A Q -- just doesn't matter? A I don't. In all -- in all candor, until right now, I was not aware of that -- of that change. I doubt I would have taken two documents and sort of put them side by side, EFTA00009099

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

as opposed to, does this capture what we're trying So, does that -- But up until this question, I wasn't aware of that to my recollection. So -- oy a : Q And you're aware of the 24 to 18 because you noticed it in the NPA, or because somebody told you separately? Or do you know? I can't -- I Q In the final NPA on page five, there's a series of things that are included at the bottom of that page, in that long paragraph, and the one that I want to focus on is the immunity portion. That was certainly not in the original draft proposed by the U.S. Attorney's Office. In this paragraph, the United States agrees, "That it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential coconspirators of Epstein, including but not limited t Did you notice that provision? EFTA00009100

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

where this could have come from. was -- I would have reviewed this for the pol Did it do the -- the sort of the bullet points, and my assumption, rightly or wrongly, would have been that | | and would have looked a this, and that this was -~ was appropriate. I understand your point. Q All right, and I believe the point you were referring to is that when I use the term jail -- get out of jail free card, that you recognize this is limited to your district? And that's an important Of course. to recognize. Of course, but nonetheless, this does give blanket immunity to people -- you have no idea who they might be, correct? If you had focused on it, would that have raised some question in your mind? A If -- if there was a discussion like wha having here, then it very possibly could have raised. difficult to say it would have, but I understand your All right, and the named individuals, p 24 individuals who were described in the pros memo and so on, 25 and the pros memo does identify that at least one of these EFTA00009102

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 288 “- and in particular, (aay -- A Right. Q ~~ would you -- do you -- do you have a -- did -- did anyone in that ground, including HMMM Lourie, in any way to your recollection characterize this case as not serious, or as trivial, or as involving non-important -- unimportant victims? In any way try to diminish either the conduct or the victims? A Not to my recollection. I -- I do think there was a concern as to how the victims would present in court, given impeachment, and given contradictory statements, but that’s different than trivializing the case. Q All right. Okay. Back to the immunity provision. Were you aware that none of the four named coconspirators had cooperated? A Iwas not. To my recollection. Q And do you recall any other case in which blanket immunity in the U.s. Attorney's Office -- A Right. Q ~~ was -- in which blanket immunity, really without -- virtually without limitation -- A I -- so, I -- Q -- was granted? A I don't recall discussion around this provision, and a general matter, I did not discuss the -- in typical EFTA00009104

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 290 But -- and so what is -- what is the need for that? Okay. And I would -- Q I see. A And so, if we had this kind of discussion, I would be sending JM an e-mail saying, what's the need for this? What's up? Q But to be clear, as we sit here today, you have no recollection of having noticed that? A I -- I don't have a recollection of -- if I read over it, my assumption would have been that ia and || thought this through and sort of addressed it for a reason. Q All right, and if -- BY Sg: Q And did you have any -- anyone ever come to you with the evidentiary issues and say, we need to track this down before we give such a blanket immunity? A I don't recall any conversation around coconspirators. SY a: Q This is where there is a mention of computer equipment. There is a provision later in that -- in that same paragraph that provides that, "The federal grand jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal grand jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and EFTA00009106

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 294 discussion, I was -- I was aware of this provision, and my recollection of this provision is at some point it was raised as something that -- that was the subject of negotiation. Q Okay. A That the office policy was that we -- that these types of deferred prosecution agreement is not made part of the public record, and -- Q Mm-hmn. A -- therefore that this is not a substantial concession -- Q Mm-hmm . A -- because in the typical course of business, this would not be part of the public record. Q And that's because it's a non-prosecution as opposed -- agreement as opposed to a deferred prosecution agreement? A So, deferred prosecution is not -- to analogize from a non-prosecution to a deferred prosecution, these are -- you know, if the non-prosecution is not typically part of the public record, the deferred prosecution, it makes sense that it follows the same. And so, it seemed that -- it seemed a concession -- I understand how it was perceived publicly after the fact. At the time, it seemed that we weren't giving up much, because the typical policy is this is not part of the public EFTA00009110

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 296 is -- is something that is absent, and that's the sort of typical language that you find in a -- I think in pretty much any federal plea agreement, which is, this agreement only -- the defendant understands that this agreement only binds the U.S. Attorney's Office for whatever district he or she is in, or -- A Right. Q -- you know, and that -- and that truly what you would call global dispositions are unusual -- A Right. Q -- for the federal government. A And I would note, you know, and this is after the fact that it does say this district agrees. Q Okay. Understood, and it's also has you asa Party, not the Department of Justice. A Right. Q But it does omit that standard language, and do you know whether that was done sort of by mistake, or consciously? A I -- I have no -- I can't speak to that. Q All right. another piece is phrasing that you injected at the -- when you addressed the first -- where it was -- it was toward the end. Where -- A Right. Q -- you talked about injecting the best efforts EFTA00009112

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 299 has prosecuted any number of cases. Q In -- again, just to keep -- A Right. Q -- perspective and context, the final week that this was being negotiated, || Lourie was in Washington, and bouncing back and forth on the weekends, because he was in transition to the front office here in the criminal division in this building. That's a factor in terms of being able to give attention to some details. Would you agree with that? It could be a factor? A So, it could be a factor. On the other hand, I'd say that | | wasn't leaving the department. He is professional. He knows his stuff, and you would expect a professional -- if they're reviewing a document, whether they're on vacation, whether they're looking to move from one Part of the department to another, that you would expect them to review it, you know, fulfilling their -- their responsibility to sort of focus in and make sure that -- that it's -- that it encompasses what it should. And that's not a criticism of JM. That -- that's saying that, well, that might be a factor. That doesn't lessen from my perspective reliance on his expertise. Q Mm-hmm. Understood. After the NPA was signed -- A Right. Q -- and QBN) came back -- EFTA00009115