Page 300 Yeah. Q -- right about that same time, he quite quickly identified a potential problem, and that was the commitment for the -- or, the agreement that the U.S. Attorney's Office would identify the representative for the victims. Do you recall him raising that? A I don't recall him raising that as an issue, but I know it was an issue. Q All right. It was an issue, and it was one that he raised as soon as he came back. So, there was an effort, which he conducted then in Hill Hina absence to craft an NPA addendum to address that issue. Do you -- are you -- are you aware that na MMMBEBMMS ceceived a copy of the NPA in November when Ken Starr wrote a letter to Plt ty asking her to review the 22.55 portion of it? Do you -- do you remember that issue? A I remember that the issue was appealed to CEOS. Q Okay. Well, it was -- it was appealed initially by letter to f {| if sg raising an issue that was new to -- that had not been raised with you, and that is what led to your letter to Ken Starr on December 4. A I will accept the timeline. Q Okay. It's difficult without all the documents -- Sure. EFTA00009116

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 301 A -- but yes. Q And at the time that 7 saw the NPA, he sent a message to? i about the -- about his view of the NPA, and you didn't see it, but I just wanted to name some problems that he identified with the disposition, and get your reaction -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- to it. So, first, he says I'm not thrilled about the agreement, but he acknowledges that's out of his hands. He says in terms of the charging and sentencing provisions, he's getting -- Epstein is getting a much better deal than the average defendant, with the exception of defendants who have done Physical harm to their victims or abused very young children, we haven't seen more egregious conduct, because of its serial nature. The area we need to be most careful about relates to the victims. The U.S. should seek to ensure that the plea, which is not giving him serious jail time, provides the best means possible to address the harm he caused to the victims. That generally means restitution and/or therapy. While the agreement provides facility for the victims, the relevant terms still seem pretty advantageous for the defendant, and They get an attorney who will be paid by the defendant, which involves at least some conflict of interest, not all that helpful to the victims. | | | EFTA00009117

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 302 er they could hire their own attorneys on a contingency basis, and they get waivers from the defendant when his plea would facilitate their civil cases in any event. Then, they still have to sue him to get anything. Most times with wealthy defendants, we make them agree to a restitution fund, and then still provide that the victims can sue the defendant independently if they choose. We always make them clearly admit their guilt, no nolo pleas. This is incredibly important to the victims. I would have taken the guy to trial unless the victims were clearly against it, and I don't think most of them are here. He then says to | | | who by this time is working for -- A 0° - iz. A Right. Q So, that's the context in which he's addressing it. HERE MEE specifies that, "TERR wowtan't ana shouldn't address the agreement." So, that -- so that the issue that was then before BRI put there by Ken Starr, was the -- whether this 22.55 scheme or scenario set out in the NPA was appropriate. It appears that she then sent that back to you to address. A Right. Q But as far as HIRI commentary on the NPA, | EFTA00009118

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 303 if you had been aware of this perspective at the time you were -- that you and your people were fashioning the NPA, would that have been helpful to you in -- in deciding out to proceed? A So, may I? Q Yes. A Okay. I assume you've read the whole thing, but let me just take a -- Q I have. A And so, a few comments. First, let me say, he was part of the September meeting. Q Mm-hmm . A And -- and to my recollection, these perspectives -- so, so, at least the outlines of the agreement were -- were disclosed at that meeting, and I don't recall this type of communication at that time. Q Okay. A I also recall that there was a lot of back and forth around this restitution fund concept, and our perspective was that the restitution fund puts the victim at a disadvantage -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- because -- let me -- let me try to recreate. I don't recall the details, but I recall that there was a perspective that the restitution fund -- EFTA00009119

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Mm-hmm . ~~ put the victims as a disadvantage -- Mm-hmm. -- and there is some reference to -- It's the -- Was it an Alaska case? It's called the J case. ° a: THE WITNESS I'm sorry? cs: THE WITNESS QP THE WITNESS (RP ys. a: Q Yeah. A And so to the extent that there were better ways of crafting this, that certainly would have been -- been highly relevant, because to my recollection, we were not wed to any particular way of crafting it. The -- the intent of the 22.55 was to come as close as possible to putting the victims in the -- in the position they would have been had he been tried and convicted federally. And so, the answer to your question is yes. Q Is yes, that would have -- A Would have been helpful. EFTA00009120

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 305 Q Okay. As you set about addressing the 22.55, you consulted with 1 7 Do you recall that? A I -- I recall consultations. I don't recall that it was specifically with Qi but -- Q Did you know her? A Yes. Q Okay, and do you recall the nature of your interaction with her? A I -- I don’t. I know from contemporary review of the record, that there is an e-mail from her. Q It's 4la. A 4la. Q And what I -- what I want to ask is, is simply, 41a is -- is an e-mail in which you ask -- you note to HW A Right. Q -- one of her deputies, and she oversaw CEOS. She, HIN,» mentioned to you that HMMM was looking at this, which is the -- A 22.55. Q -- 22.55, she contacts her counterpart in the civil division, 9 WN). anc’ there's an e-mail from him, which is the second page of this exhibit, which he copies you on. So, my question is, is this the extent of your interaction with yy Hin on this issue? EFTA00009121

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 306 I -- 12 years -- Okay. A -- after the fact, I don't remember. Q Okay. All right. The -- in Exhibit 35, there is a letter from Jay Lefkowitz in which -- I'm sorry, it's an e- mail from Jay Lefkowitz. A Exhibit? Q Exhibit 35 to you, and this is substantially later, but it has a sentence that -- or a phrase that we'd like to ask you about, and -- all right, it's highlighted at the top. It says, back in the beginning of -- back at the beginning of January, when we both agreed that there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement, you called a time out. Is that accurate? Did you and he agree that -- A No. Q ~- there were significant irregularities? A No. Q Okay. A And if I could, there are -- there are several instances where not just, to me, but to other people as well, Jay recharacterizes conversations. Q Recharacterizes them inaccurately? A Inaccurately. Q Or misleadingly? EFTA00009122

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 307 Or misleadingly. Q All right. A What I recall agreeing to at some point is there was an appeal to the DAG, or there was an appeal in place, and I basically said -- I think there was a letter that I sent, saying if you want to appeal, go ahead. We're not concerned about this. Q Mm-hmm. A But that doesn't mean that I agree that there were irregularities -- Q All right. A -- or that there was a time out, that's -- I'm part of a department. I'm part of a hierarchy. If someone wants to overrule me, that's okay by me. Q All right. So, the NPA addendum was worked out, and the defense team continued its sort of multi-pronged assault. In the middle of the negotiations between EE and Lefkowitz about the NPA addendum, that's when you had the much commented on breakfast -- A Correct. Q -- on October 12, and you have stated publicly that at -- perfectly accurately that the NPA was signed, and that was a done deal. And so, that -- that this was not tied in any way to any effort to influence the terms of the NPA, fair? EFTA00009123

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 308 A Fair, because the way this was reported was that I negotiated it over breakfast. It was signed, and that's really important. Q Of course. There were, however, a number of open issues -- A Yes. Q right? And in Exhibit 28, Jay Lefkowitz on page two, this is an e-mail to you, acknowledges your -- your breakfast on Friday. This is dated October 18, and -- and following following up on -- your conversation with him about the date for Epstein's plea. So, he notes that, "You said you didn't want to dictate a schedule to the state." So, all I want to note is that when you had the breakfast, there was -- there was -- there were issues still open that were the subject of discussions between the defense and the U.S. Attorney's Office. And -- and so, I guess my question is, while that was a meeting of convenience in a public Place, in a location where you had business later that day, a speech, I believe, optically, do you understand the public concern that this was sort of a one on one negotiation on pending issues? A So, I -- I understand how there can be concern. This, you know, it is -- it was not unusual -- in this case, I actually very intentionally waited, and tried not to have EFTA00009124

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 309 one on one meetings, but there are other instances where I might from time to time have one on one conversations with the opposing counsel. I don't remember the breakfast. I can speculate that one of the issues that was informing this was somewhere around this time, and I can't say with certainty that this was what it was, but somewhere around this time, there arose allegations that | | had directed the designation to her boyfriend's partner, or something along those lines. Q A former -- I believe it was a former law school classmate of her former -- of her then boyfriend. A I don't -- yeah, and so I don't remember what the details -- Q Okay. A -- were, but I know that that was a topic that he wanted to raise -- Mm-hmm. -- with me. Did he at that breakfast? I honestly -- I don't recall the breakfast. Q Okay. A You asked me about one characterization of what I said in the record, you know, of that breakfast. I think I responded -- Q EFTA00009125

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 310 A -- through, or my counsel responded, and they're pointing out that I seem fairly perturbed at how he inaccurately characterized something that I said. And so, we don't need to revisit that, but -- Q Uh-uh. All right. If you look at Exhibit 27, another sort of point, just to kind of -- A All right. MR. a Could we -- before we -- “S. MMM: = ves? MR. Es : -- leave -- are we leaving the breakfast meeting? MS. MMMM: «No. This is -- THE WITNESS Okay. MS. MMMM: -- this is directly related. MR. MM: okay. BY ms. x: Q And that is, Exhibit 27 is the second e-mail down, is from Hl | to Jay Lefkowitz. The date is October 12, so that's the same day as your breakfast. A Right. Q And the date of it is not -- I'm sorry, the time is 9:48 a.m. Your breakfast was at 7:00. So, this would have been pretty shortly after your breakfast, and | writes to Jay Lefkowitz with a copy to you and | Hn stating that he just got off the Phone with you, that is, EFTA00009126

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 311 MMMM «just got off the phone with you, and then he furnishes a revised paragraph one, which suggests -- I mean, I infer from that that shortly after the breakfast, you had a phone conversation with i a about a revision to this Paragraph, and that -- that that was likely something that you talked to him about. Again, I'm not -- A Right. Q -- suggesting that this -- A Again, I -- I don't -- I don't recall the breakfast, so I can't say one way or the other. I -- I take -- I take your point. I don't recall seeing this. Q All right. Well, it was -- A But -- Q “~ you were copied on it. Okay. All right. ma. you wanted to -- BY MR. a: I just wanted to point to Exhibit 30. Can -- can we back up a second? MS. BM: «ss sure. THE WITNESS a. I'm not sure whether your concerns are -- so, I would -- I would only raise the question where -- or, the point where, based on this, and I don't recall, so I can't speak, but | | is saying, Jay suggests revision has been rejected. Here is our latest, EFTA00009127

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 312 And so, to -- there are multiple ways to read this. One is that this was raised. Another is that we're rejecting something that Jay had proposed, and -- MS. FM: = Mm-hnon. THE WITNESS -- because I was meeting with Jay, I asked that MMMM not reject it until after I met with him, and I -- I'm speculating, because I don't recall the topic, but it does appear that it says, Jay suggested revision has been rejected. Here is our latest. MS. MMMM: = all right. hank you. [Ee BY MR. Sg: Q Can we just go to Exhibit 30 quickly? There's some highlighted language. This is a letter from Lefkowitz to you on October 23rd, 2007, where he recounts, again, the things that happened, or his version of the October 12th breakfast meeting. A Yes. Q Are you at that -- Yes. -- at that point right there, Exhibit 30? Yeah, I'm there. Q Okay. So, in the highlighted language, if you could just take a look at that quickly? A Yes. Q So, he is recounting that you had assured him that EFTA00009128

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 313 EVENING SESSION 6:00 P.M. the office would not intervene with the state's attorney's office, and -- or contact the civil claimants, or intervene regarding the sentence that Epstein receives Pursuant to a plea agreement. A Yeah. So, is he correct in his recounting that? Can you -~- can you find that for me? Yeah. So, again, I don't have an independent recollection. Oh, no, I'm looking -- MS. | si Oh, you have it. THE WITNESS -- for something -- I don't have an independent recollection of that breakfast, but in the contemporaneous e-mails and the contemporaneous record, there is correspondence between -- between || and I, and you all asked for this, and I -- I spoke with my counsel, who then responded, and there's an e-mail exchange where there's an October 20 -- this was an October 23rd e-mail -- October 23rd letter. And then there is a response that's drafted on October 25th. I don't know if we can find that. From | | to Jay that specifically addresses the point, and then I respond -- | | runs that by me, and I respond -- I edit the EFTA00009129

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 314 letter, and I move it -- I sort of emphasize -- like, I make it firmer, and my edit Says our office cannot and will not agree to this, and then my comment to 7 is, what do you think of this rewrite? Is it too strong? BY MR. a : Q What day was that? A That was two days after this. I don't know if we can find that in the -- in the chronological record. That was October 25th. Let's just take a minute. Is that what you have? MR. MMB: Sorry, apparently my ability to separate Paper has failed. THE WITNESS Okay. So, this is -- MR. a : Oh, I see. THE WITNESS So -- MR. Es : Sorry, go ahead. THE WITNESS So, October 25th, I'm writing to |g what do you think of this rewrite? Is it too strong? And it says, dear Jay, I'd like to take this opportunity to document our conversation of October 24th which clarified some of the representations in your October 23rd letter. I write in particular because you indicated that your intent in writing the letter was to memorialize our conversations. Our agreement is limited to blank, blank, blank, dot, dot, dot. EFTA00009130

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 315 I specifically want to clarify one of the items that I believe was inaccurate in the October 23rd letter. Your office claims that this office would not intervene with the state attorney's office regarding this matter, or contact any of the individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants, and their respective counsel in this matter, and neither your office nor the FBI would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein received. I'm quoting Jay's letter. As we discussed and hopefully clarified, and as the U.S. Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call, such promises equate to the imposition of a gag order. Our office cannot and will not agree to this. It is the intent of this office to treat this matter like any other case. Thus, as is typical, we do not desire or intend to "intervene" the state attorney's office. The non-prosecution agreement provides sufficient mechanisms to achieve the goals of the federal investigation. You should understand, however, that there are some communications that are typical in these matters. And so, I go on, and so my point is this was pretty -- based on -- if you reviewed my -- my e-mails and language, for me to write something up saying, what do you think of this rewrite, is it too strong? Q Mm-hmm. EFTA00009131.

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 316 A And to edit MBB) language to, our office cannot and will not agree to this, is not my agreeing with this characterization, but my polite way of saying, this ain't what I said. Q Mm-hmm . A Let me be clear. Q And then -- A Again, no independent recollection. This is just based on inferring from the contemporaneous e-mails. Q Okay. BY MS. a: Q What I would like to do is ask a couple of questions in a couple of areas about the main justice review. A Okay. Q Then take a short break, and then |] has some questions that are CVRA related, and then we have some summary questions. A Okay. Q Is that all right? A Can I -- before you -- you move on, can I address something that MJ was getting at, but it's getting late, so I'm going to circle back to -- to -- Q Please. A -- something that I thought you would bring up. MS. BR: sure. EFTA00009132

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 317 THE WITNESS So, I think something to talk about is, pre-agreement and post-agreement, I think are different, and one concern that I had, and I certainly shared with -- with Mr. Him was once it was signed -- so, we had the initial issues with the case. Once the agreement was signed, we now have an overlying issue of, is there -- is the agreement binding? To what extent it's binding. And so, you -- your question was, why this level of process after the agreement was signed, and I said I think you'll get back to that. And I think to some extent, there are two parts to that. One is, the office shouldn't be afraid of review. We're part of the Department of Justice, and review, whether it by main justice or now you all, is -- is part of the process. And so, to the extent that they want to appeal to main, it would be unseemly to sort of say, don't review us, and I don't think it would help reviewing this, but the second part of it is if we were to walk away from the agreement, that not only are we litigating the underlying criminal case, but we're litigating a civil/criminal issue on top of that, which is, did the agreement bind? And that's something that did inform the exhausting amount of process that they -- that they received, which didn't change any of the outcome. EFTA00009133

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 318 By MS. iy: Q Didn't bind what? A So, if we were to walk away, were -- could we still prosecute? Q I see. A Right? Because having signed that, we were now Parties to an agreement, and that would overlay any sort of Prosecution. And so, you had these collateral issues coming. BY MS. Rg: Q Just to make sure we're clear, are you saying that there is -- there would have been difficulty in declaring a breach so that you could then indict? A Correct, and so we'd have to litigate over a breach, because as much as they had collateral challenges, they are very careful in saying, this is not a breach, we would just like review. And so, one of the issues that overlaid the post -- the October going forward time period is on top of this, do we now want litigation over a breach? And so, I think that is why the post-agreement time period is different than the pre-agreement -- MS. CRB: Mn-hrn. THE WITNESS -- time period. BY Ms. QB: But was part of that problem the result of the EFTA00009134

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 319 change from, here is the date that you must comply, to, you must use best efforts to comply? A Possibly. I would -- whether it was that, or others, or other parts of the agreement, we can talk about, but how -- once the agreement was signed, and they do not -- and they start pushing the date, there becomes a legal issue over, are they really in breach or not? And I'm not -- I understand your perspective. I'm just saying, you know, earlier I said that there was a difference. You asked about the process, and I said from my perspective, there's a difference between the pre-agreement and the post-agreement time period. And much of that difference is informed by, if we declare a unilateral breach, how does this hold up in court? Because now there's a signed agreement that the United States is a party to. Q And are you saying that part of the reason, or maybe all of the reason that you continued to give accommodations and process and delay was because of the concern that you couldn't actually win a breach argument? A I think that was a consideration. Another part of the considerations are if someone -- if a party wants to take -- I mean, main justice gave a lot of process. It wasn't -- it wasn't, you know, it wasn't just to -- to J, but it was up to the -- it was just up to the assistant EFTA00009135

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 320 attorney general for criminal division, to be polite, but it was up to the DAG. And so, if main justice is going to give this degree of process, we should -- we should be in the position of saying go forward, as opposed to, I don't think it looks positive for the office to be viewed as fearing department review. Q But were you giving the impression to the Department of Justice that you were the one who wanted this review so that they felt like, well, it's not just these defense attorneys who we can blow off, it is an United States Attorney who is asking for this review, and so therefore we need to give the courtesy of reviewing this? A I don't think I asked for it as opposed to saying, if you would -- so, from the very beginning, they said that they're going to take this to the Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General. And I said, if you want to, fine. They just finally did, but that was not -- that was not -- I think they raised that as early as August or September. And so, I'm not Surprised that it ended up there. I also thought it was important to not be in the position of fearing review. I think if you look at the contemporaneous record, there's an effort on our part to expedite the review. By MS. ag: EFTA00009136

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 321 Q But there's a difference between, have at it, go, do what you want, up at main, and getting that -- A Right. Q -- that non-opposition, and actually sending a signal to -- in the -- in the case of the criminal division, the assistant attorney general, in the case of the DAG's office, Mark Filip or his assignee, that you supported their review, that the -- this appeal process. You could have said, look, we're going to go ahead and get on with our business. If they want to -- if -- you could have not so much opposed a review, but not seconded their request for -- the defense request for reviews, or not in fact invited the reviews. A So, I'd be curious as to the timeline. I would take issue with, I invited the reviews, and I question whether, did they initiate the reviews on their own, and then I said have at it, or did I -- based on -- I mean, you've got more of a record than I do, or did I invite -- I don't -- I would say I did not invite the reviews. Q Well, let me -- bad terminology, perhaps. Let me ask you this. If -- would've -- did you convey to the criminal division that you wanted them to review this matter, as requested by the defense attorneys? A So, from my perspective, I'm thinking back 12 -- EFTA00009137

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 322 Q Mm-hmm. A -- 12 years now. The very reason that we invited GMI to come down to Miami back in August was a sense that it would end up up here. And so, if it's going to end up up here, let's bring [J down. Let's make him part of the initial meeting. You know, if there are concerns, let's raise these. Let's address them. Let's get them out so that we don't end up, after we go forward with all of this, back in front of | | and QM. And it's much better to involve main justice earlier. And so, I would say I was trying, if anything, to -- to involve main justice so that we didn't end up where we were, and it had been my expectation that that October date would have been met. The collateral reviews afterwards, the collateral appeals, obviously did not go as -- as we planned, and -- and it was my sense, we were going to end up at main justice one way or another. Q So, my question is in December, after the December meeting -- A Right. Q -- that you had with defense counsel, and they told you they were going to go to main justice. A Correct. EFTA00009138

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 323 Q To the criminal division. Did you convey to main justice criminal division that you wanted them to conduct the review that defense counsel were seeking? A So, I don't recall what I may or may not have conveyed. I think my recollection was, if they want a review, that's their right. We're not -- asa department, we're not in the business of telling individuals that they can't take something to your supervisor, or your superior. Whether -- whether main justice takes this on or not is ultimately at their discretion. Q Would it surprise you to learn that the criminal division front office understood you to be requesting their review, the review that was sought by defense counsel? A Would it surprise me? Perhaps. My -- my -- my understanding -- recollection is we shouldn't fear it. If they want it -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- that's their right. I thought by inviting | | down in the first place that we had at least tried to address that early on, but I also thought that we might end up there in the first place. Q Were you -- were you aware that a decision was made to grant the decision by your office to grant defense counsel's request -- their insistence that || Pitt; | ft | | role in the criminal division review be limited to review EFTA00009139

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 324 only, and that he not be permitted to -- or that the criminal divisions -- that the -- I'm sorry, I misspoke. That because 7 GA Bai already been involved in essentially being a prosecutor on the case -- A Right. Q -- that the -- the criminal division and CEOs’ role vis a vis this review should be review only. That is, they should be taken off the case as a -- as a partner? A So, I sought e-mails to that affect in the record. I don't have an independent recollection 12 years -- Q You -- A “- 12 -- Do you think you were involved in that decision? To take them off? Yes. To my recollection, I wanted them on as a partner, and I think the contemporaneous -- Mm-hmm. ~~ e-mails from J is, can you please come on But that was earlier, before this review process? No. No. Even after the -- All right. -- review process, I think there are contemporaneous e-mails where we're saying it's important EFTA00009140

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 325 that you be part. If we go to trial, it's important that you be part of the trial. As I -- as I went through the record, at least I remember -- Q Mm-hmm . A -- an e-mail, perhaps from to Qj that I'm copied on saying, hey, can you reconsider? It's important that you be part of this. Q Reconsider the review only limitation? A No, no. Reconsider being a part of the trial -- Q Oh. All right. A -- team. Q All right. So, to be clear, do I understand that you -- correct me, that you don't have a recollection one way or the other whether you requested the criminal division to conduct the review, or could it have happened, or -- A So -- Q -- what? A ~~ to the extent I -- again, I'm going back -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- 12 years. To the extent there is a request to, it would be in the context of, this is going to Washington. We're not fearful of this. Have at it. Q And you would have conveyed that to Washington? Not just to the defense attorneys, is that correct? A I imagine in some way. It's -- EFTA00009141

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

All right. BY MS. (a: And just one -- A Yeah. Q -- just one point. This one -- this one was a little bit of an -- A Yeah. Q ~- odd posture, however, because you had a signed agreement. And so, you know, basically a contract between parties -- A Right. Q -- and particularly on Mr. Epstein's side, a party who was -- who was extremely well represented. So, was there any consideration on your part, instead of saying, hey, everybody's got a right to review, knock yourself out, go up to Washington, as opposed to saying something like, that ship has sailed, guys. You signed this agreement. We're going forward. You don't go forward. You're in breach. End of story? A So, his counsel are raising serious issues that go to ethics and go to fundamental relationships between sovereigns. Is this 22.55 appropriate as a matter of federal policy? Is what we're doing an overreach, you know, is what we're doing contrary to law? Are we extracting -- I'm characterizing. This may or may not -- EFTA00009142

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 327 Q Mm-hmm. A -- be accurate. Are we extracting unduly? Are we using criminal law to extract civil concessions in an ethically suspect way? Those are serious issues. That isn't just, is this a good case? Those are -- those are genuine issues. I happen to think that, as I recall, that we were in the right or we wouldn't have agreed to it, but by the same token, let's assume that main justice ultimately disagreed. Is that from a main justice perspective? And maybe I'm coming at this from a -- you know, being informed by having been at main justice. Q Mm-hmm. A Where there was talk about, can you believe what this AUSA -- this AUSA may have done or may not have done without consulting, that these are serious issues. They establish precedent. They -- you know, maybe the DAG would have said, this is not the kind of thing we'd support, and this is wrong. And so, at the end of the day, let's move forward, but if -- once these issues are raised, I don't think a U.S. Attorney should say main justice should not review this. I think we're part of one department, and these are valid issues. Main justice doesn't need to take months to review this. Main justice can expedite their review, but EFTA00009143

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 328 those are valid issues for the deputy and the AAG to review. Q But one could look at it and say, well, those are all issues that the defense certainly knew about before they signed that agreement, and having signed the agreement, they are waiving all of that. That's what contracts are for. You've got all these issues, don't sign the contract. A And if I could, I think there's a December letter. I don't know if it's -- if it's in the exhibits, but there's a December letter that I wrote that, for me, is -- Q This is the 19th? A Maybe it's the 19th. Let me -- Q Or the -- MS. a: The 19th is the -- your sort of ill-fated NPA addendum effort. THE WITNESS No. No, a letter to -- to Ken Starr that I wrote. But -- MR. QM: 9 The 4th letter is to Ken Starr. THE WITNESS I'm sorry? MR. QM: «Is it the December 4th letter? THE WITNESS Yeah, it's probably -- MR. QM: (December 4? THE WITNESS It's the December 4th. MS. RRB: Yeah, it didn't have a date. MS. PF iii| | & All right. That's the one you EFTA00009144

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 329 THE WITNESS So Ss THE WITNESS -- MS. xD: in response to the -- THE WITNESS So MS. EE: 22.55 issue. THE WITNESS I think, you know, I -- you know, I'm starting on page four. I have responded personally in some detail to your concerns because I care deeply about both the law and the integrity of this office. I have responded personally and in detail as well, because your letter troubled me on a number of levels. Upon your understanding of the negotiations are. The 22.55 was first discussed July 31st. You know, and one of these four points in -- in the middle of 2007, your defense team decides -- asked to meet with me. On September 7th, I met. After considering of the arguments, and after conferring with FBI and i} | {| | § our office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time, I offered to delay -- our prosecutors to delay presentation to allow you to appeal our decision if you choose. You chose not to. Instead, you elected to enter into the NPA. Since the signing of this agreement, the feds in our office have addressed several issues that have arisen, although the EFTA00009145

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 330 exchanges at the time were a bit litigious. xs. Q This -- could I -- could I thought point out -- A Yeah. Q -- that this letter is in response to not the at the request for a review by the criminal division, that comes later. This is in response to Ken Starr's letter to Hi WM) about -- raising 22.55 -- 22.55 issues that had not been raised with you before. A Right, which is -- which is in essence a review. I mean, he -- they're coming to main justice, and you know, it's against these many previous foregone opportunities to object that I receive with surprise your letter requesting an llth hour after the fact review of our agreement. Although it happens rarely, I don't mind this office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay. Indeed, I'm confident in our prosecutor's evidence and legal analysis. I nonetheless directed them to consult with subject matter experts in the criminal CEOS division to confer to our interpretation of the law before proceeding with this indictment. So, I guess, you know, we consulted CEOS. I'm thus surprised to read a letter addressed to the department headquarters that raises issues that either EFTA00009146

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 331 have not been raised with this office previously, or have been raised and in fact resolved in your client's favor. I'm troubled likewise by the apparent lack of finality in this agreement. The AUSAs have been negotiating with defense counsel and have for sometimes complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. Q So, this is your protest of, it sounds like Starr's effort to bypass you and go to Pt | with new issues? A It is, and I'm pushing back in that, was I inviting this, or was I sort of saying -- you know, that said, there must be some closure on this matter. Some in our office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of this agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible to unwind. In closing, I ask that you consult with co-counsel. If after consultation with your defense team you believe that our agreement is unethical, unlawful, or unconstitutional, I'd ask us that you notify us immediately so we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I've consulted the chief prosecutor in this case who has advised EFTA00009147

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 332 me that she's ready to unwind the agreement and proceed to trial if necessary, or appropriate. Q So, are you suggesting that this represents your protest of their appeal to at -- A So -- Q -- on this point? A So, protest is a -- is a loaded word. What I'm suggesting is, this is not an invitation to appeal to main justice. This is sort of saying, enough is enough is enough. Q But Mr. Acosta, in fairness, this, to clarify -- A Right. Q -- this is in response to a letter directed to Hn dated November 28th -- A Right. Q -- 2007 raising issues that he had not raised with The appeal subsequently that I was asking about was -- A Right. Q -- an appeal for a de novo review -- a de novo review of the whole case. A Understood, and my -- the reason that I -- that I read this, you know, is this is not -- on the one hand, I'm saying we do not fear review, but I don't -- this is not an invitation to defense counsel to do a de novo -- I am not inviting them. I'm not saying, let's have more review. I'm saying, enough's enough. If they appeal, that's fine, but EFTA00009148

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 333 this is not an invitation to appeal. Q But there was nothing you could do to stop their appeal, right? Except indict? A And so the department shouldn't stop an appeal to main justice by -- you know, by threatening. Q Fair enough. A Because main justice has a right to review. Q I should have said that -- that this -- that this appeal process was stymying progress in resolving the Epstein case. A It was. Q And you had no way -- you had no recourse, other than, at least theoretically, you could have just said, you know, we're -- A Right. Q -- going to tear it up and indict, because you're in breach, in effect. A Which would have raised civil litigation -- Litigation. A -- overlays, which is the point that I thought merited -- Q All right. A -- at least flushing out. BY MS. a: So, short of the department itself getting a move EFTA00009149

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 334 on, and getting this thing through expeditiously, did you feel like you just had to sit there and wait for everything to get done? A I'm not sure sit there and wait, but -- but ultimately, the case did not get better with time, and there. was frustration on our apart about, you know, the witnesses are not getting better. You know, time -- Q They're getting older. A They're getting -- which goes back to how a juror may see them. MS. (RM: «Right. THE WITNESS And I do recall conversations of their getting older, you know, this case is not getting better. We now have the civil overlay that we need to deal with. And so, yes, that -- there was process, but while there was, should we just call it a day, all of that factored into, well, if the department is reviewing the department is reviewing. BY MS. a : Q Okay. Are you -- what is your view of whether the criminal division's review encompassed the NPA itself? A So, the criminal division, by its terms, did not -- did not encompass the -- the NPA. I would say that's different than the deputy's review that encompassed the totality of the -- of the circumstances. EFTA00009150

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page Q Okay. Did you discuss the -- did you have conversations with the DAG -- with Mark Filip about this case? A Not to my recollection. Q Okay, and we've already talked about the submission that iF WMP. made on behalf of your office? A Which -- which -- yes, which I thought was a fulsome submission, and included the draft indictment, the NPA. I believe it included the term sheet and other documents. Q Did you or anyone else to your knowledge ask ODAG to review or assess the NPA, or approve it? A Not to -- before signature, not to my recollection, but it was part of the ultimate review when il submitted the matter to the deputy, he included the -- Q It was -- A -- the agreement. Q It was included. Their very brief letter, you remember -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- the letter that || Hi-- A Yes. Q ~~ authored, that he authored. Addressed really only the issue of the appropriateness of the case for prosecution in your office. It did not in any way reference EFTA00009151

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 336 the disposition, the plea agreement, or the NPA. A So -- so, it was a brief letter. Based mm submission, I would have read that letter as, they had all the material in front of them, and they were saying that there was no misconduct or abuse of discretion. Q That's correct, but they did not say that they contacted -- that they addressed or assessed, reviewed even. They didn't say they reviewed or approved the NPA. A They -- I again, you know, I -- if the letter is here, I don't know, but -- Q Yeah. I have it right here. It's not marked as an exhibit, but this is i i letter to Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Starr dated -- A Right. Q ~~ June 23, 2008 It states that this office, meaning the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, has completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the matter involving your client. A And -- Q And addresses the -- or, states that they've received and reviewed submissions from both parties, and then States that the deputy attorney general, "Will intervene only in the most unusual of circumstances," in a U.S. Attorney's matter, and, "we do not believe such intervention is warranted here. Even if we were to substitute our judgement EFTA00009152

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 337 for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate. Moreover, having reviewed your allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and the facts underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any reason to alter," -- A Right. Q -- "our opinion." A And so, so, if I could point out, this office has completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling of the matter. And so, handling is a broad -- is a broad term, and in reference to, we believe that federal Prosecution of this case is appropriate, the way I recalled reading that is, the federal prosecution of this case, the argument was that the agreement was inappropriate because this case should not have even been prosecuted, and therefore that the disposition -- the federal prosecution of this case, was appropriate. And so, the handling of the matter, we reviewed the handling of the matter, not -- not the agreement, but the handling of the matter, and that the ultimate disposition, if -- you know, is at least not an abuse of discretion, or appropriate. Q That's how you read it? A That -- that is how I read it. EFTA00009153

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 338 Q And did you ever discuss that -- did you ever discuss with anyone in ODAG what the scope of their review was? A Not to -- not to my recollection. It was a fulsome submission. Q Correct, but if -- if -- but the issues presented by the defense were essentially federalism issues, right? A So, the -- the -- again, this is -- this is based on, you know, as much recollection as contemporaneous record. The issues presented by the defense were, it -- in essence, it was the heart of the non-prosecution agreement, which is, was it -- was it an abuse of discretion to -- to proceed in this case in the way that we did on the grounds that there may not -- there should not have been a federal prosecution in the first place, or that we were using federal criminal law to -- to elicit a civil outcome. And so, I don't think it's fair to sort of narrow -- you can't -- you can't say that our handling was -- you know, that their handling was reviewed without reviewing the non-prosecution agreement. Q Do you have any reason to believe that the -- that either ODAG or the criminal division did -- well, that the ODAG, let's stick with that -- A Right. Q -- did in fact review the NPA, other than to be EFTA00009154

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 339 aware it existed, whatever its status might have been? A So, again, it was clearly submitted. It was clearly referenced. Q Mm-hmm. A And it was clearly part of the complaint. The complaint -- the heart of the complaint about our office was that we were using this agreement to impose civil liability. And so, I think it is fair to infer if the complaint implicates the agreement, that the agreement would have been reviewed. Q That -- but that's your inference. You don't have any -- you don't -- didn't have any specific communications with OD. - A I don't -- -- to that effect? I don't recall a specific communication. All right. Okay. I would like to take a short We're getting there. I hear you. There is -- I'm good. -- one area that my colleague, || Hil will take on -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- which has to do with the CVRA -- EFTA00009155

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 340 Right. -- and then we have some kind of wind up questions. Okay. MR. QUE «Can we -- before we take a break, can I just -- ‘S. i ves. MR. QUE =OI'11 try to queue up what's going to be coming next -- THE WITNESS Mm-hmm. MR. Hn -- and maybe that'll help us move through it, because -- THE WITNESS Right. MR. QM: -- you've been through a very long THE WITNESS Yeah. MR. Pig We appreciate your -- the time you've put into this. You've been here for quite a long time. THE WITNESS Well, yeah. BY MR. a: Q The area that I want to discuss after the break has to do with the ultimate notification to the victims about the resolution of the case, the state plea, and the result of the federal investigation, and there's going to be -- we have documents that are in your -- that are already marked there EFTA00009156

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 341 that might be helpful if you take a look at a couple of them so we don't have to go through -- maybe during the break so we don't have to go through them one by one, or I can just give you a very quick overview of sort of where we're going. I want to find out basically how you were getting from there -- what would be the -- the state asking for the U.S. Attorney's Office to make the notification to the victims about the upcoming state plea that happens in November of 2007. That would be document 32b, to the defense then finding out that the government want to notify the victims by letter, and then demanding that they see the letter and have some kind of comment on it. That would be document 33, an e- mail from Lefkowitz. Then we have an exchange of letters, but the one I'd like you to look at is document 37, which is a letter coming from 9M) to the defense -- not now, but you know, during the break. So, I want to find out how we get from that document, 36, where til is writing -- MS. —: «936. BY MR. a: Q -- as letter saying that -- citing the CVRA regulations saying that the government is obligated to notify the victims about the resolution of the case, and attaching a draft letter to the victims telling them the time and date of EFTA00009157

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 342 the state resolution and plea, inviting them to come. To ultimately a letter from you coming on the 19th of December 2007, which is No. 41b agreeing to not notify the victims of the state plea, and agreeing with the defense to have the state be responsible for putting out that notification. And then we end ultimately with a letter or draft letter that we have that goes out to the victims in the case on -- after the plea in July. Well, we have the draft I'm going to show you, which comes in June, showing that the letter was clearly meant to be sent after the plea as per the agreement, and that is document number 51. A Okay. That's -- Q So, it's a lot to -- That's a -- -- unpack there. That's a lot to unpack. We should probably take it a step at the time? Q Yes. I just wanted to -- A All right. Q -- give you an overview, because I think that some of what you had mentioned earlier -- and I know -- I know it's -- A Yeah. Q -- been a long time, so -- EFTA00009158

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 343 Yeah. Q -- I'll try to orient you for the timelines. So, if you'd just have a -- I've highlighted the sections of those letters that we want to talk about, and if you have a chance while we're taking a break to look through them, that may help orient you so that we're not -- A Right. Q -- spinning our wheels on this. I don't want to waste any of your time. A Fair. MS. QJ: All right. off the record. (Off the record.) MS. QJ: «411 right. Back on the record. MR. QJ: 9 Are we back on the record? MS. EJ: = Yes. a. a: Q Okay, great. So, I know I gave you a lot to unpack over the short break we just had. One -- basically what we're trying to get to find out is how the -- your decision making process regarding the victim notification issue. So, maybe if you could just give us a -- anything with your December 19th decision, could you give us an explanation about how you got there? A So, I think we should probably take this in stages. Okay. EFTA00009159

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 344 A As a general matter, I recall that there was back and forth regarding -- after the agreement -- regarding how to notify the victims, and there was back and forth between fH NS 22k Say Lefkowitz and QM around all that. Sorry, I'm losing my voice. I recall that there was an issue in particular that was raised that I tried to address in the letter, and I recall at the end of the day, it was my impression that once there was an agreement for him to plead, that there was an attempt by QM to provide notice to the victims, but it was a very -- it was I think on a Friday, and he was pleading on a Monday morning or something along those lines. And finally, I recall that the view of the office was that the CVRA did not apply, and so that this was a discretionary balancing that included consideration of what impact notification of the 22.55s would have at trial -- the 22.55 provision, if we had to go to trial. So, we can -- we can unpack that, but those are my -- my general recollections. Q Okay. A And look, let me -- let me add, I -- so, I think it's important -- so, I came in and out of the case at stages, and -- and I was involved in certain aspects more than others, and while we had a long discussion about the terms sheet and matters like that, while I was clearly EFTA00009160

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 345 involved in at least one dispute around the 22.55, the nuts and bolts of how victims were notified is not something that I have a recollection about. Q Okay. Fair. A But we can unpack it. Q Okay. Let's start with the Exhibit 33. So, there, we have an -- as you can see, it's an e-mail from Lefkowitz - A Mm-hmm. Q -- to you, and to il objecting to the -- a letter being sent to the victims, unless the defense gets to review it. And later on in some of your other correspondence, you discuss that you -- you extended to the defense the courtesy of allowing them to review these letters. Is this the genesis of that courtesy? A I can't -- I don't have a recollection as to what the genesis might be. I know that there was back and forth between our office and the defense about the -- that letter. Q Okay, but as you can see on 33 that you're not on the response from 9, but HREM instructs Ha «© send the proposed letter to Lefkowitz, and -- A Yeah. Q ~- I assume that [IMM wouldn't have done that had you objected to it. A Again, I don't -- I don't recall any specific EFTA00009161

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 346 conversation. As a general matter, this is not something I was getting into the weeds on unless I had to. There was a lot of back and forth. Q Mm-hmm. A MMM ois someone that I trusted. He was handling this matter. He's incredibly experienced. I know that there were concerns and issues around the impact that notification would have on the witnesses. I know there were -- there were issues around the language, and I trusted that folks were working those out. Q Mm-hmm. One of the -- the criticisms that's come post, you know, the CVRA -- A Right. Q -- litigation that's been the government allowing the defense to have review of these letters, or potential victim notification letters coming out of the government, and that that's unusual. Have you ever -- have you had any other cases where you've let the defense review such documents? A I've had no other cases where I'm even aware of victims being notified, because I assume it all operates without it rising to management level. Q Mm-hmm . A And so this is the first and only time that how individuals are notified, to my recollection, was even in the executive suite. EFTA00009162

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 347 Q Mm-hmm. Isn't that usually done -- accomplished by almost a computerized task? A I -- I would assume so, so yes. Q And it's a -- given that that's the usual way that notifications are made by a victim witness specialist, who is usually that person? A Yes. Q Do I have that right? And so, the FBI has their victim witness specialist? A Yes. Q And your office, the U.S. Attorney's Office has dedicated people who do that job as well? A Correct. Q So, why in this case, not direct, the -- this -- this notification to that person to be done in the usual course, why elevate to something that the defense is going to be able to review? A So, so, I can't address the second half of that, but the first half of that question, why -- why was it elevated? You know, I think Hil addressed some of that in her, was it 2017 affidavit, and -- and so, we had an agreement that had been signed, and we also had substantial questions as to whether that agreement -- whether ultimately Jeffrey Epstein would plead in court or not. And so, one of the questions is, how do you deal EFTA00009163

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 348 with notification of a possibility, where that possibility could be used to impeach potential future witnesses who are also the victims, and that is a matter that was being worked out by the AUSAs in the office. Q And the -- and the impeachment is what? A And so, the impeachment -- and I -- I would -- I believe J went into it in some detail, is you stand -- you, Miss Victim, stand to gain quite a bit of money if there's a conviction, correct? Isn't -- weren't you aware of this agreement, if we have to go to trial? Weren't you aware of this agreement? And this isn't based on my recollection. This is based on the QMS affidavit, where she says that she had concerns that the impeachment go along -- somewhere along the lines of, were you aware that if Mr. Epstein's convicted, you stand to receive substantial sums? Yes. Were you influenced by this? And there was some -- according to her affidavit, this isn't my independent recollection, this is according to her affidavit, there had already been dispositions of the victims -- of at least some of the victims that raised these issues. And so, I do think it was a valid concern by the AUSAs how these notifications took place. Q Okay, but isn't that the -- that type of line of cross examination the same for any case where there's a super EFTA00009164

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 349 wealthy defendant? A It may be. The 22.55 may make it a little different because it's automatic, but ultimately, these are the judgements that line attorneys make, and as U.S. Attorney, I think it's appropriate to back up their judgment unless there was some reason for me to believe it was incorrect. Q Was there any thought ever to just giving the victims notification that there will be a proceeding that will end the federal case, just separating that in a -- maybe a later notification about the 22.55? A I can't speak to what thought there was or was not. I can say around this time frame, it was far from clear that there would ever be -- that Epstein would ever go into court, and we were thinking we may have to just go to trial, because these collateral attacks keep going. Q Okay. Okay. Let's get back on track to the -- the question that I asked earlier about allowing the defense the courtesy to look at these letters. Is -- can you just remind us again, what was -- what was the reasoning that you're -- that they're allowed to look at the -- A So -- Q -- victim notification letters? A I can't speak to that. This is something that -- that [J and QJ would have handled. I think that, you EFTA00009165

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 350 know, I'm responsible for the office. I'm not shirking, I'm just saying that this is -- that this was for the most part within their wheelhouse, and not something that -- that I was involved in. I can -- I can speculate. Q Sure. A The agreement was notifying them -- the letter was notifying them of certain rights in the agreement, and therefore, this is a time when we weren't sure what was happening with the agreement. And so, perhaps this was a way to -- to address some of the concerns around the 22.55. I don't know. I'm just speculating. Q Okay. Let's move onto Exhibit 36. This is a letter that goes out to Lefkowitz under Pitiivil} signature. You are cc'd on the letter. A All right. Q And what he is doing is sending a draft victim notification letter, which is attached as the attachment there, dated December 6th, 2007. And I wanted to get your impressions of -- if you go to page three of the letter, please? And that -- the first little paragraph there, when it -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- refers to the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act, and then ultimate for the CVRA, if you could just read that paragraph to yourself, please? EFTA00009166

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page A Are you referring to paragraph 10? Q I'm sorry, I'm not on the -- I'm on the letter, not -- I'm sorry, I'm on the -- A Oh. Q -- left -- the letter Sorry. -- Lefkowitz, not the draft letter. This one right The additionally? Yes, additionally, pursuant to the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, our office is obligated, etcetera. A Okay. Q Do you agree with that language? That interpretation of the victims' rights, as far as the notification? A So, let's -- let's sort of take this -- this one sentence at a time. With respect to notification of other information that we were supposed to disclose, the statute requires that we provide victims with the earliest possible notice of -- I -- I will assume that that is a restatement of the statute. I don't have it in front of me, but let's assume that that's a restatement of the statute. Just as in 18, these sections are not limited to -- the victims, through EFTA00009167

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 352 this federal -- should be appropriately informed that a non- pros does not require to forego its legal obligation. Ona sentence by sentence basis, I mean, do I agree, sitting here? Sure, but I would want to sort of sit down before I gave a legal opinion and spent more time with it, but -- Q Okay, because coming out of your office, sort of this and that -- well, let's go to the next page, page four. A Yeah. Q There is a citation to the right to confer in the first paragraph there, citing the CVRA's reasonable right to confer with the attorneys of the government in this case. A Okay. Q So, we have -- you know, it looks like to me -- I mean, let's -- A Right. Q -- well, it -- it appears that there is two references to the CVRA obligations that the government has that ultimately the government argues that it did not have. Can you explain why that is a correct interpretation? A So, what I can say is I recall -- so, it looks like at least some of the victims were notified. I recall a discussion and a view that the CVRA did not require it -- it was discretionary, because it wasn't -- the case had not indicted, so it did not attach on its terms. That doesn't mean that it's not something you aspire to. That just means EFTA00009168

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 353 it wasn't legally binding. Q So -- and in the same manner though, while the CVRA isn't legally binding, it also doesn't prevent you from notifying the victims, does it? A It does not, no. Q And you have the discretion to notify, should you choose to. A Correct. Q Okay. And so, if you look at the letter that's attached to this, this is a draft that goes out where on page one -- two -- page three of the letter, and the second to last paragraph, the letter is giving notice of Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing that will occur on -- well, at this time, it was December 14th at 2007, and it gives the address, and it says underneath there you are entitled to be Present and make a statement under oath. If you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath, etcetera, etcetera. So, this is a letter that's actively inviting victims to come to the state. Would you agree that that's inviting victims to come to the state plea? A That -- I think that's fair. Q And with the letter's reasoning that the government is sending -- would like to send this letter because it believes it's obligated to, because it resolves the federal case? EFTA00009169

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 354 A So, I -- I don't want to speak to the reasoning, but it's clearly a draft that the government is saying, it intends to send. Q Okay. Now, ultimately, just this is not a question, just -- Got it. -- some information that will help to move us Right. The -- obviously, this letter is never sent. Ms. pi | drafts, we have them, and I'm not going to show them to you, 30 letters, copies of the letter -- A Right. Q -- to different victims, addresses them, puts them in envelopes, and is then told not to send the letters. A All right. Well, the plea never -- it's scheduled for December 14th, so yeah. Q Yes, but one of the issues that's still percolating until the end of December is who is going to make this notification? Because as you can expect, the defense pushes back on this letter. And so now we go to the -- the -- number 39, please? And this is a December 11th, 2007 letter from Ken Starr to you, and if you look on page two, at the front -- at the top of the -- the top of the page there, he is -- this EFTA00009170

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 355 letter is complaining about an oral notification that Ms. MMM) gave to a -- one of the defense -- one of the victim's attorneys that a letter would be coming. And so, Mr. Starr is writing you to complain about it, and he mentions in -- later in that paragraph that we have thought that the notification process had been in abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with respect to that process. So, were you having discussions with Mr. Starr about the process at this time? A I don't recall discussions. I -- I think there was at least correspondence, or -- I'm sorry, where are you? I was reading the -- reading the letter. This -- I'm sorry, where are you? What paragraph? Q Let's take a look -- and it's been a long day. Let's slow down here. We're on the second page of the Starr letter. A Yes. Q And it would be this and that, the -- the language in there -- in the second sentence, which goes towards the bottom. A This notification, but quite apart from our substantive concerns, which -- we had thought the notification process had been in abeyance until the completion. That appears not to be so. This is respectfully -- so, where does it imply that I was having -- EFTA00009171

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 356 I don't recall communications with Mr. Starr, that's why I'm curious where -- at least verbal communications. I'm curious where you're reading that from. Q I thought he -- he's saying, we had thought that the notification process had been held in abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions. Are you saying that that's -- he's -- A So, I don't know where that may have come from, and I don't recall. I recall at one point -- I think I sent a letter saying we'll hold off for a week. I don't recall the date of that letter, while you review some matters. Where the abeyance came from, I can't -- I can't speak to. Q Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 41b. This is your December 19th letter, and what I'd like to draw your attention to is page two, the second to last paragraph there. A Yes. Q So, could you tell us how your decision making around this paragraph, how you got to this decision? A So, so, you're asking me to recreate -- I -- at some point, the issue clearly moved from mi interacting with defense counsel to -- to my desk, and my recollection 12 years after the fact is -- so, you're saying we shouldn't notify them about the state proceeding, and sure, the state -- this was negotiated between Epstein and the state attorney. EFTA00009172

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 357 We did not direct the state proceeding. So, whatever state process is appropriate for the state process will be given. But with respect to the federal resolution, we intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution as required by law, and your question is if we thought it was discretionary. I recall our believing it was discretionary, but you could also -- it doesn't hurt to in a letter say we're kind of required to do this, and I think it was the right thing to provide them notice of the federal resolution. And once that resolution was reached, and part of the key word is what the resolution is, my understanding is that i made efforts to notify victims of that resolution and let them know that -- that there would be a hearing the following Monday, that they should attend, because these -- it would bring an end to the case. Q Well, let's just back up real quick. As far as -- so, do you -- as far as the state attorney notifying people of -- victims of the -- A Right. Q -- state resolution, did you have any concerns with that particular part of it? A So, difficult to recreate the thought process 12 years later, but ultimately you've got federal, and you've got state, and the state attorney will do what the state EFTA00009173

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 358 attorney thinks is appropriate. It's not for me to direct the state attorney. I'm inferring, based on this language, it's not for me to direct the state attorney, or for our office to direct the state attorney's office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome. Q Okay. I'm just asking because, you know, the whole case came to your office because of some issues with the state attorney's resolution of the case. So, now it's going back, and they're going to be in charge of the notification. Did that raise any flags with you, or did you have any concern about whether it would be done correctly, or done at all? A So, again, you've -- I -- this has come up in different contexts, and I think it's -- there was obviously a concern about how it was being charged, but that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever obligations they have. Let's not assume that -- that the state attorney's office is full of bad actors. Q Okay. BY MS. aaa: But even if not assuming that they're full of bad Right. -- it's going to be difficult for them to notify EFTA00009174

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 359 the victims, wasn't it, that they didn't even necessarily know the same list as the federal victims, because you had found more victims. A So, we could certainly have shared that list with them. I mean, there are -- there are ways that this could have happened. I don't know how -- what the communication were, but as a conceptual matter, having the state notify them of the state hearing and having the federal government say, and this is the federal resolution, is consistent with the law. Q But since the federal resolution is tied to the state plea, is -- why not just combine the two of them in the notification? Here's the federal resolution. We're tying it to the state plea, and here's -- A Right. Q -- the date of the state plea? A I can't speak to the why not. I can -- you know, I can speak to my belief that this would be consistent with law. That could also be one approach. I can't speak to why A versus B. Q Did somebody instruct you that -- or did you have a conversation consulting with somebody about whether this was the better approach? A I -- I would have said -- you know, based on practice -- not recollection, but based on practice, I would EFTA00009175

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 360 have sat down with QM, most likely, since he was handling this matter, and we would have talked about it. I -- I would not have sent this without running it by at least | es not other individuals in the office. I don't know if based on your record there is -- there's e-mails with drafts, but you know, every document that I'm aware of was sort of shared within the management team, and this would have been one of those. Q With respect to that one specific decision about this should be at the discretion of the state's attorney, did you consult with anybody in D.C. about that issue? A I don't recall consulting with someone in D.c. about this issue. I recall a general perspective that the CVRA as a technical matter did not attach because ultimately this was not -- it hadn't -- this was not an indictment. BY MR. Q Oh, can we -- before we leave this letter -- A If I could, I -- I -- and I understand your questions, but I feel some obligation to raise the tension between, did you consult in D.C. versus should you allow D.c. review. And so, just, you know, we certainly were allowing review, but U.S. Attorney's Offices don't consult on every matter, especially offices that have the kind of experience -- EFTA00009176

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 361 MS. a: Mm-hmm. THE WITNESS -- that Miami does. MR. QM Back to me? MS. QE: Mn-hmn. MS. QE Mn-hon. MS. QM: = Back to you. BY MR. a: Q Before we finish with this letter from the 19th, can we look at page three, please? There is -- if you could read the first paragraph on page three to yourself, please? A Okay. Q Could you -- in that section, you mention that prosecutors had asked you to declare a breach, and you resisted. Can you discuss that? A So -- sure. That's -- that's referencing -- I think increasing frustrations by the -- by the prosecutors, and I think that's reflected in contemporaneous e-mails saying, why don't we just rip this up? And I recall conversations with MMM. and that goes a little bit to what we talked about earlier, which is concern that a unilateral breach would overlay not just the initial issues that we had, and not just the fact that the victims are getting older and the case isn't getting better, but then we have, was the unilateral breach a valid breach, or was it not a valid breach? EFTA00009177

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 362 And is -- is the delay justified or not justified. And ultimately, that additional -- that additional liability -- not liability, that additional legal uncertainty was -- would have made the case even harder, because they were very careful to always say there is no breach. MS. I: Mo-hmn. THE WITNESS Let me -- let me address, because I went on to read the next paragraph as well. And so let me circle back to an earlier issue -- MR. QM: 9 Great. THE WITNESS -- because I at least want to address it because the next paragraph then says, and it's clear that I'm increasingly frustrated. It's against that -- that my frustration with it appears to be an llth hour appeal weeks before the now scheduled July 4th plea date. That said, the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted irrespective of timelines concerns. We hope to preserve the July 4th date. I understand defense counsel shares our -- with this in mind, and in the event the defense counsel may wish to seek review of our determination in Washington, I spoke this past Monday with Attorney Gen§MMMMconfirming if it's possible appearing to ask her to grant the potential request for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner in an attempt to preserve the July 4th date. EFTA00009178

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 363 MR. QF: 9 January 4th. MS. MM»: That address -- January. THE WITNESS I'm sorry, the January 4th plea date. Sorry, it's -- BY MS. EE: Q And that addresses the question I was asking. A And that goes to the question you're asking, and again, I'm recreating and I'm speculating. Having that following the -- another 1ith hour appeal here, I would say I -- I wouldn’t say, let's appeal this again. I think I'm saying pretty clearly, it's against my frustration with what appears to be an 11th hour appeal weeks before the now scheduled July -- January 4th plea date that this is not an invitation to do another appeal, because the appeal is already in Washington. But my -- my saying, if -- if we're going to do this appeal, let's get it over and done with, then I'm sort of speculating based on the language, so that we can get this pled on January 4th, and let's not put it off until after the holidays. But you did say, "To ask her to grant the potential Which is -- -- "for review." Which is why I wanted to on my own raise it, EFTA00009179

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 364 because is that saying please appeal me, or is that saying -- this is an llth hour appeal that you have now taken to Washington. It is December 19th. We're about to go into the holidays. There's a January 4th plea date. This should not be another way to put it off. And so, if you're going to do this, I'm going to try to expedite it so we can get this done. And in fact, it took until May -- Yeah. -- 15. And it did, and apologies, I just realized my voice Q All right. A -- rising. So, I don't know if that's my frustration at reading this again, or it's getting late, but it -- but it was a frustrating matter. Apologies. BY MR. (a: Q Let's just move to Exhibit 46. So, this is an e- mail from Ms. QJ to you and HEM discussing how she has interviewed some victims that day. There's a mention that one of the victims said that she would rather not get any money and she'd have -- she would rather have Epstein spend a significant time in jail. Did that piece of information go into your character list at all about how the EFTA00009180

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 365 case should be resolved? A So, again, not based on recollection, because this is maybe if not 12, 11 years ago. Q Okay. A But at this point, there had been an agreement. The agreement was signed. It was being reviewed. Based on this e-mail, we're trying to get and expedite the criminal division, because I -- I see it says please reach to | | to make her decision. And I -- I think at this point, as I said, if -- if we knew earlier -- if we knew that it was going to go this long and take all of this, I think we may have approached the case differently, but we were so far along on this, there was a signed agreement. The United States can't unwind an agreement just because it's frustrated, or just because some victim indicates that they don't like it. That's not -- you know, if the agreement is not legally valid, if there are some other concerns, but I don't think this in and of itself would have been grounds for unwinding an agreement. Q Do you think it's misleading for the government to have been interviewing these witnesses and preparing them for a@ trial when there's already a signed NPA that resolves the issue? A So, that was part of the judgement that there's a EFTA00009181

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 366 signed agreement, but based on the course of conduct, is that agreement really an agreement that will be honored? And so there was an ongoing investigation as well, because we didn't know if we'd go to trial, and I know that -- not I know. My recollection is that the judgement was until we know that this agreement is really going to be performed fully, that to inform victims of the possibility of civil recovery is problematic, and -- and I can't say that judgement's incorrect. That -- I think that's a valid judgement. Q Fair enough, and then the last question on this e- mail is at the bottom, Ms. fs invites you to attend interviews with four of the girls who would be coming in the following day. A Mm-hmm. Q Did -- did you attend? A I -- I did not, and as U.S. Attorney, I don't think I attended -- that's not -- that wasn't typical for our office. Q Would -- was that ever -- had you ever had that type of request come from a line assistant? A Not to my recollection, but I also tended not to have communications come from line assistants in the first place. Q Were you at all curious, given the -- you discussed EFTA00009182

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 367 the issues with the witnesses in this case -- A Right. Q -- that, potential impeachment, and that -- you know, that caused you to -- that went into the negotiation phase. Did you have any interest in seeing these people -- even interacting with them personally so you could make your own assessment? A So, any interest is -- Q Would there be value in doing that? A So, we had very experienced prosecutors. It's not just interacting with the -- the -- the victims were in a really hard position. It's not -- how I would draw a distinction between a victim being interviewed by an agent, and how a victim holds up in court, in a public setting under cross examination, and in that, I don't think anyone in the office was questioning the pain or the suffering of the victims. I think that the issues were how would they hold up in court, which are uniquely trial issues. Q Okay. Then let's move onto -- what -- what -- what was your understanding that -- that the federal government was going to do as far as the notification about the resolution of the case? A So, my understanding was that once we believed that the case was going to be -- that the -- that the plea was going to go forward, that we would notify the victims of the EFTA00009183

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 368 resolution, and of the agreement, and how -- basically, how it played out. Q Now, are you saying now -- now, you had agreed to not notify -- well, did you -- I mean, you're -- one would read your December 12th -- 19th letter as an agreement that the federal government is not going to notify the victims of the state plea. That's -- and that will end that part of the case. Is that correct? A So, so, I would parse my letter differently, and this is 12 years after the fact, and so this isn't based on recollection, but on my reading and my understanding of the course of conduct in this case, sitting here now. Q Mm-hmn. A My understanding was that our office was notified -- was it on a Friday afternoon? Q Yes. A That he would be pleading on Monday, and that at that time, MJ made efforts to notify victims that he would be pleading, and that that would terminate the federal resolution of this matter, and that the victims should attend that hearing, which wasn't the state resolution of the case. It was the federal resolution. Q And so, you -- you're saying that the state plea was also the federal resolution of the case? A Based on my understanding of what happened, that's EFTA00009184

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 369 how my recollection -- based on having reviewed the record, that's how I believe it proceeded, although I think Hin attempted to do so, couldn't reach some attorneys, and exercised best efforts to let them know, but did not get ahold of all of the victims -- Q Let's -- A -- over the weekend. Q Before we get too deep into that, let's just take a quick look at Exhibit 51. So, this is an e-mail forwarded to you from [MMM from January -- June 25th, 2008. So, that is five days prior to the plea in this case. A Yes. Q Or, the state court plea, and the attachment there, you'll notice is a letter with a notification of identified victims, and the letter is written, would you disagree -- it's written with, on June 30th, Epstein pled guilty. Do you see that? A Yes. Q So, the inference -- it appears to be that this letter was to be sent after the plea. A I -- I see that. I also -- based on my review of the record, where I think I'm recalling the Rin affidavit, where she said that she made an attempt to notify the victims as soon as she was made aware that he would be pleading -- that he would be pleading in state court. EFTA00009185

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 370 Well, the -- what says in affidavit -- A Correct. Q -- I believe is that she made notification, and the police department -- Chief iE police department made notifications. Is that -- is that correct? Does that ring a bell? A MR. TODD: Do you have a copy of the affidavit, so we can just look at it? MR. QB: = Do you have WME @ < ficevit e- Ms. Es : It's right here. One copy. THE WITNESS I'll hand it back. MR. EEE : Almost done. THE WITNESS So, relevant to this paragraph 34, and then another paragraph, these and other attacks and efforts to avoid the NPA's terms led the FBI investigative team, the office, and me to conclude that prosecution at trial remained a possibility, and we should prepare as such. This meant that the victim notification letters had to cease, because one, we no longer knew whether Epstein would perform under the NPA, and hence, we did not know whether providing information about the NPA would be accurate, until we believed that Epstein, through his counsel, would attempt to use victim notification concerning EFTA00009186

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 371 the NPA to suggest that victims had been encouraged by the FBI or the office to overstate the victimization for monetary compensation. And then fast forwarding because you can read it on your own. On Friday, June 27th at approximately 4:15, I received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement, and learned that Epstein's state court change of plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday. The Palm Beach Police Department and I attempted to notify the victims about the hearing in the short time available to us. I specifically called to Attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. I believe it was during this. I never told that the state charges involved other victims, and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charges to a specific cell. So, that was what I was referring to. Again, I am -~ I am basing this based on my review of the affidavit and not on recollection of how this may or may not have proceeded 12 years ago. Q Okay. You know, would it surprise you to learn that Ms. MMM only communicated with Mr. Edwards that day? That's because she was under the direction from a manger to only contact Edwards regarding this -- the EFTA00009187

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 372 potential plea for that Monday? A The affidavit said she attempted to notify the victims, so I can't speak to that. Q Okay. A And I don't have an independent recollection of this going back 12 years. Q Were you aware that Ms. Hin was directed to have no communication with the state's attorney's office, and probably during the later period of the case in 2008? A Not to my recollection. Q Okay, so did you have -- would you not recall hearing anyone directing her to not communicate with the state attorney's office? A I can't speak 12 years later, what role I may or may not have had. I question how, if we need -- if there is a-- an attempt to schedule a plea in all that, how can there not be communication? But I can't -- I can't say whether I did or did not. When I say I have no recollection, I mean that in the broadest sense of the word. Q Okay. In your December 19th letter, you -- you did agree that the state attorney's office would notify the state's victims, right? A Yes. Q And do you have any idea how that was to be accomplished? EFTA00009188

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 373 A I can't speak to that, no. Q And would you have any knowledge of who the state victims are? A I would infer that -- that our office would have had sufficient communication with the state attorney's office to communicate who the victims were in this case, because it was an ongoing -- it was an ongoing matter, and -- but I don't know. Q Do you want to go on? MS. QF «Okay. Are you -- are you done with your -- that portion at least, for the moment? MR. Qk ssYes. = Thank you. BY MS. nn I'd just want to clarify something you said a Sure. -- ago, Mr. Acosta. You said you referred to the agreement, the NPA, as having been -- it was signed and was being reviewed. Were you talking about Washington? A Right. Q The criminal division, but we established earlier, did we not, that the NPA was not the subject of the criminal division review. They expressly declined to review it. A I stand corrected. Okay. I just wanted to be clear on the record. EFTA00009189

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 374 Thank you. So, we -- we've had a lot of conversation about facts. We are fortunate in this case to have a plethora of documents upon which we can rely even 12 years or so after the fact, and we've tried to plum your -- the depths of your memory as to the events. Are there any facts -- any conversations, any incidents, anything based on the questions that you've heard here today that you recall, have recalled, that you want to tell us about, want us to know? A So, give me a minute to just sort of think this through. Q Of course. A I think we've covered most of the issues pretty clearly. I guess I would have two general comments. The first is, whether folks agree or disagree with the initial two years, you know, registration and restitution. The office's focus was on having Mr. Epstein go to jail at a time when, from our perspective, these -- these cases were, at least presented with these facts, federally at least unusual, and that most trafficking cases involved different -- a different sort of nexus. It involved bringing individuals into the country, or holding individuals against their will, or doing something like that, and -- and this will go to my second point which is, you know, sitting here, we now see several high profile EFTA00009190

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 375 individuals who abused power, and have now been prosecuted -- who were known at the time who abused drugs, like Bill Cosby and -- who were -- there were rumors at the time, and you know, and -- and so, looking back, maybe it was the right call. Maybe it wasn't the right call, but there is some degree of -- I'm not sure what the right adjective is. Frustration, that -- and certainly, some of this goes to me, but I think a lot of this goes to JM) and the individuals involved, that the attempt to put someone in jail as opposed to decline the case and say this is just a state case, that -- that the -- that the federal issues are too tricky, that ultimately, this is sort of novel interpretations, that the attempt to come up with an outcome has rebounded in the way that it has, and I'm not -- I'm not saying, look, that that's life, and I understand that. But I do think it's important to look back on this, and try to be in the shoes of the thought process in 2006 and ‘07 when trafficking prosecutions were fairly new, when, you know, more so than today, some jurors may have looked at this as prostitution, and were -- perhaps more so than today -- judge's tolerance for victim shaming may have both caused more hesitation on the part of victims, but also created more issues at trial. And so, I think we've touched on that, but I think as we sort of wrap up -- EFTA00009191

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 376 Q Mm-hmm. A -- this portion of it, it's important to just restate that. Q And -- and to -- in addition, are there any facts that you -- conversations, or anything that you -- A Fair, you did ask this. Q -- that we have -- that we've not really elicited from you that you want us to know? And to be clear, you'll have an opportunity to -- A Right. Q -- supplement this. Not that I can think of -- All right. -- sitting here. Q All right. How do you respond to public criticism that the defense attorneys -- the Epstein defense team, were gaining extraordinary access to an influence on prosecutors from the line level all the way up through the department? A So, I would point out early on in the case -- when I said early, you pushed back, but from my perspective, early on in the case. Not when it was first investigated, but when it first bubbled up for decision. Q And that would be mid-2007? A Mid-2007. June-ish, May to June 2007, May, June, July. We determined, here are -- here is what we'd need for EFTA00009192

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 377 resolution. And I -- I think I addressed some of this in the Daily Beast's letter. Q Mm-hmm. A Because we were receiving criticism back then, and I think that letter has been misconstrued to some extent, because it was not, oh, here are influential people, we're backing off. It was, we, early on, set three criteria. Two years, registration, restitution. Despite all these attorneys, despite all these appeals, despite all these efforts, the office did not budge with the caveat of the 24 to 18 months, which we've discussed, and from my perspective, despite all of that, I backed the office in sticking by that resolution in the various appeals to Washington. And so ultimately, it was a year-long process, but we ended up a year later exactly where we started with the caveat of the 24 to 18. And so, to the extent that there was influence, there was -- there was no change in position. Q Well, my question was access. That this team of defense attorneys -- Right. -- had extraordinary access, that they asked for they -- Right. ~~ pressed for -- with communications, and they had EFTA00009193

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 378 that access. Was -- did that seem extraordinary to you? A So, they asked for a meeting with me before the agreement was signed. Q Mm-hmm . A I granted that. That's not the first and only time that I granted a meeting to -- to defense attorneys. I don't think it's atypical, particularly as a case is coming to -- to resolution -- for a U.S. Attorney to sit down and meet with opposing counsel, and I can think of several cases where that happened. There was certainly a lot of access in Washington. I would speak to -- you know, I think that's a question to direct to this building. Q Mm-hmm . A Because the process here was lengthy, and frustrating. But I think we successfully held firm in our positions, despite all the process in this building. Q And again, my focus is not on your response, but on the access. A And -- Q Based on the prominence and the -- the prominence of the defense attorneys. If these had been local attorneys, your sort of average criminal defense attorney from, you know, name where they hang out in -- A Right. Q -- Miami coming to you and pressing for this, you, EFTA00009194

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 379 writ large, the department, do you believe they would have had the same or a comparable level of access? A So -- Q I don't know the answer. I'm asking. A Yeah. So, I guess I'd respond this way. If an attorney after meeting with my management staff asked for a meeting with me, I believe I did and would have granted it, and I can think of several matters on which those types of meetings were granted. And so, that was not unusual. Q All right. A With respect to the back and forth after the agreement was signed? This was an unusual agreement, and to some extent, as a result, the back and forth quickly elevated, particularly because matters would elevate in particular when they were being addressed at main justice. That would be one natural way for matters to elevate within the office. And so, the fact that they were being addressed and reviewed, and letters were coming here, would naturally elevate the way the matter was treated in Miami. Q In particular, Jay Lefkowitz had ready access to -- of course, he was involved in the negotiations with J directly in creating the NPA, but after that, it appears from the record that he was often contacting you, and running or going above the people who worked for you, and on numerous eccasions, you -- again, my characterization -- reprimanded | | | | | | EFTA00009195

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 380 him, or instructed him not to do that, and to direct his communications to the line attorney or her supervisors. Is that -- is that -- A I-- Q -- a fair characterization? A Yes, on -- I think on several occasions, I said direct them, and again, that was after the agreement was signed, but yes. Q But there were many issues still pending, correct? A Yes. Q Okay, and that was his ability to reach out to you as a function of your personal association. Is that fair? A So, I don't think that's a fair characterization. I think it -- you could also say that it was the ability of -- a function of his -- his insistence in not doing what we asked, and the fact that in a typical course, a Miami attorney would not have done this, because they would have to interact with the office on an ongoing basis. Q Mm-hmm. A And so, the repeat litigator behaves very differently than the one time razed earth litigator. Q Mm-hmm. Razed, R-a-z-e-d? A Correct. Q Is it reasonable to -- for us to understand that you have followed the media coverage of what happened in the EFTA00009196

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 381 Epstein case over the years? A Yes. Q In your view overall, and in whatever specific respect you wish to address, is -- has it been accurate or not so? A I think it has been inaccurate in several ways, and we can go through them, but -- Q If you could just tick those off? A So, I think it's inaccurate in that it has been characterized as our approving a state plea, and -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- the complexity of this case was a state plea, and we were deferring to -- in favor of a state prosecution has been lost, and it's something that I have attempted to correct, but it's very difficult to sort of explain that in the media. You know, this is a bad analogy, and so I haven't used it in the media, but I've thought about it, and so I'll share it. So, after the Jessie Smollett plea in Chicago, there was some discussion of whether the federal government should bring charges, and I remember the media saying that, and I haven't used this analogy, because I don't want to compare, and I think it would be disrespectful to compare the facts of that case to what happened to these victims, and I still -- and I don't want the comparison to be drawn, but EFTA00009197

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 382 there is a legal comparison, right? The U.S. Attorney in Chicago could have stepped in and said, whether or not the state takes this plea, we may investigate this federally, and sort of stopped that plea from going forward, or at least put a wrench in those gears, or the U.S. Attorney could have pursued that under petite policy, and did not. And so, our stepping into this sort of reminded me of how many times cases that are viewed as a manifest injustice do occur, and yet the federal government does not step in? And the fact that we stepped in has been construed as, this became a federal prosecution, and sort of going -- going to -- is it QR, or -- 0 zz. A HE. 4 I) srt of question earlier, the distinction between -- it was not a manifest injustice versus this was the right outcome, is something that I think has been lost in the coverage of this matter. I think a second issue that has been lost in the coverage of this matter is, there are references to Prince Andrew, and Alex Dershowitz and Governor Richardson and Bill Clinton, and thing happening in London, and the so called Lolita Express where things may have happened on airplanes. And so, this is viewed from the public as this international matter, where the victims were local, the actions, to my EFTA00009198

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 383 recollection, was local. And so, the distinction between this Palm Beach incident and what the media likes to cover, which is, you know, was, you know, did Mr. Epstein force a minor to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew, is a very different fact pattern both in terms of the public perception of forcing a minor to have sex with a third party, that they have -- you know, that is outside the solicitation context. It's sort of -- I'm travelling with these women, and forcing them to have sex, versus a more local matter that -- I don't want to say solicitation, because I think we've covered that, but that some may view as that. Q Mm-hmm. A And I think those are two major elements -- Q Right. A -- that have been lost in the coverage. Q The case has been criticized as having involved improper influences, or favors, or payments that affected decisions that were made within your office, and you're aware of all those -- A Yeah. Q -- allegations as well. In connection case. Were you yourself ever offered any -- any any favors, or any promises or job assistance or like that -- EFTA00009199

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 384 No. -- in connection with this case? No. Q And to your knowledge, was there any such offer to anyone associated with this case in your office? A Not to my knowledge. Q It's been asserted also that the -- the handling of the case in the office was affected by Epstein's wealth and influence in the Palm Beach community. Do you -- what is your -- what's your response to that criticism? A Again, my response would be, you know, sometime in May or June we came up with these three points, and we stuck to them, and -- and you know, I -- despite all of this, you know, when people make these assertions, somewhere along the way, the fact that we stuck to those points is lost and is not talked about. And so, we did stick to those points. You know, and -- and questioned whether the case would have come to us in the first place but for -- and so, you know, I think that could also go the other way. Q I don't understand that. A That it's highly unusual for a case to be brought to the state -- to the U.S. Attorney's Office after the state attorney declined -- not declines, but Q Fails to fully prosecute? EFTA00009200

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 385 A Right, and so, so one question that at -- that also doesn't get asked is, you know, to what extent was this case brought to us in the first place because of this, because of his profile? Q In other words, are you suggesting that his wealth and influence in the community affected the state authorities? A I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is the case came in, the case proceeded, and someone can make the argument that the only reason that Chief i brought it to us was because it had such a high profile -- are there other matters that take place in Palm Beach that a state attorney declines in the first place that isn't brought to the state attorney because it doesn't rise to that -- Q You mean to the U.S. Attorney. A -- to the -- to the U.S. Attorney because it doesn't rise to that profile. Q All right. All right. BY MS. a: Q Well, in fairness, he might've done it because of the number of victims too, right? A He may have. I don't know. What I'm suggesting is we tried to treat it fairly, not looking at, hey, how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need to do this because he is so wealthy. EFTA00009201

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 386 Q What do you think about the media's treatment of the line assistant, (y A I think she -- I wish her name wouldn't be in the media. You know, to some extent, U.S. Attorneys, when they take the job, realize that part of their job is to take the slings and arrows. You know, there are instances when AUSAs were accused of misconduct, and -- and I always sort of felt that that was -- I don't want to say below the belt, but that's not why they take the pay cuts that they take to go into federal service, and you know, I think the media coverage of this case has been unfair, and has lost a lot of the complexities. It's not surprising, because I mean, here, we're talking about -- about a lot of those complexities, and it takes a fairly sophisticated discussion, but I think it's particularly unfair on J. Q In your attorney's written response, he used the term relentless for -- to characterize the team of lawyers -- the defense lawyers, and in that Daily Beast article that you -- A Right. Q ~~ wrote, you referred to the yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors, you noted that the EFTA00009202

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 387 defense was, "More aggressive than any of which I or the prosecutors in my office had previously encountered." You noted that the defense investigated prosecutors and tried to disqualify two, and I believe that those two are | =: ME =z enae —- A That is correct. Q All right. A Yeah. Q And you also noted, or asserted that there were investigations into the family lives of individual prosecutors, accusations of bias and misconduct against individual prosecutors, and even the threat of a book on prosecutorial zeal. Do you still regard that characterization as accurate? A Ido. You know, whether I would use those same words now, we can spend a lot of time talking about it, and I'd want -- Q All right. A -- to think about, but I do think that's accurate. I think this really was a razed earth type of matter, and in the office's typical interactions, the prosecutors know they have to come back to the office. And so, they would not -- sorry, not the prosecutors. It's getting late, though. The defense counsel. And so, they would not -- it's not just the EFTA00009203

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 388 accusations against the attorneys, but the mischaracterization. I -- you know, I could go through the record, and there's several instances where my words, or other AUSAs words are being mischaracterized, or where -- going back to one of the WM e-mails, people walk out of the meeting believing they have an agreement, and then that's unwound, and -- that that is not -- I don't know if that's typical in Washington, but that's certainly not typical in the Miami office. Q All right, in that Daily Beast article, I think you also used the term peccadillos. A Yes. Q What did you mean by that in particular? A Could I see the -- could I see the -- Q Mm-hmm. I was afraid you'd ask that. I have it right in front of me, and I don't at the moment, but -- MS. QM: Are you talking about the to whom it may concern letter? MR. a: Yes. THE WITNESS Yes. ay MS. aT: Q Yes. Thank you, and it's a reference on the second numbered page of this copy, to personal peccadillos, in the middle of the page. A Also, individual prosecutors and their families EFTA00009204

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Ea EFTA00009205

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

ge the point I was trying to convey is, this is And again, that's not the focus of -- Pe Q All right. Are there any other examples where defense counsel came to you that have not otherwise been addressed with -- about someone -- EFTA00009206

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 391 Q -- else -- A -- just because I'm trying to think through, and not to my recollection, no. Q Did they ever raise or imply that there were -- that there was information regarding you of whatever respect, that was in the nature of a sort of a threat, or a veiled warning? A So, the book reference was that I might be personally embarrassed by pursuing this matter, because I would be the subject of a chapter in a book on prosecutorial overreach. Q And who was going to write that book? Do you know? A Professor Dershowitz. Q Mm-hmm. Okay. Did you consider him a professional friend at all? A I had not, to my recollection, met him. I -- I understand in this letter I sort of grouped him in. Q Mm-hmm. A But I would -- I'd say for the record that it's hard to know what my intent was in 2011, but that's for simplicity of grouping individuals, because I did go to Harvard. I may have run into him at Harvard, but he was not my professor, and I don't -- I didn't work for him as a teaching assistant. I had some interest in criminal law, EFTA00009207

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 392 I may have chatted with him, but -- but that would have been it. Q And did you consult with him at all in connection with your efforts -- your interest in potentially teaching or being involved in the -- sort of the law school world, either at Harvard, or at Florida International, or anywhere else? A Not to my recollection. At some point when I applied for the deanship -- I wasn't aware of the deanship until -- so, let's -- let's take this -- let's take this in part. I thought about looking at Harvard for a teaching position. To my recollection, I never followed through on that. Q Mm-hmm . A I knew Elena Kagan, and may have had a conversation with her that would have been a preliminary, how does this process work? But I don't recall taking it -- if I took it that far, and I'm not saying that I did -- this was a long time ago -- I never sort of went through -- the way law schools hire is a very -- they call it the "meat market." Q Mm-hmm . A Take that for what it's worth. It's something that happens at the hotels here, at the -- at the Marriott here in -- on Connecticut, and it's a very formalized process, and I never -- Q Mm-hmn. EFTA00009208

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 393 A -- went through that. I don't recall any conversation with Professor Dershowitz about that. To the extent I was thinking about it, it'd be natural for me to talk to MMM) but I don't recall talking to him. With respect to Professor Dershowitz, with respect to FIU, the dean process is very decentralized. To the extent a faculty member spoke to him, I don't know. To my recollection, and again, this is a long time ago, I did not ask him for a reference or a letter or something to that regard, although I may have. It was a long, long time ago. I was also no longer active in this case at the time. Q All right, and what about with respect to that same process on your part, Ken Starr, who actually was a dean of a law school at the time? Did -- did he provide you with a reference, or -- A Not -- Q -- advice? A Not to my recollection. Q All right. A As -- as the letter from -- from Ken at the end, there was some -- by the time this was over, there was some degree of tension between us on my resolution of this matter. Q But it also appeared to be tension that both of you were eager to leave aside. EFTA00009209

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 394 A I'm a big believer, and I had good relationships with the defense bar. I think lawyers can disagree and not be disagreeable, and we would be a better profession if we all learned to do that. Q So would the world. A Yes. Q There is an -- sort of investigative journalist author named I GREE: A Yes. Q Do you know that name? Yes. Did you ever speak with her? So, she was the recipient of the do -- to whom it may concern letter at the Daily Beast. Q Oh, really? A Yes. Q All right. All right. Thank you. I didn't -- we didn't know that. Did she comment back to you on it? A It was a long time ago. I don't -- I don't recall. Q So, she wrote a book called trafficking. Have you read that -- A She did -- Q -- about this case? A She did. I haven't read it recently, but I read it a while ago. EFTA00009210

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 395 Q And she says in that book that you told her a few years after the NPA was signed that as she writes, "He felt incapable of going up against those eight powerful attorneys. He felt his career was at stake." Did you say that to her? A Not to my recollection, and what I tried to do was, for the record, provide this letter to her, and the purpose of this letter was to say the exact opposite, which is -- and you know, we have this -- you know, and she and the New York Times, and I think the New York Times called it -- what -- what's the word? Like, apologia? Does anyone know what -- Q Apologia. Apologia. It's a -- it's an -- I -- -- apology. It's a fancy way of saying -- Yeah. -- you're -- Yeah. -- explaining yourself. Yeah. I looked it up, and it's a little more derogatory than explaining yourself, because I felt a need -- Q Mm-hmm . A -- to look it up, but the New York Times called this letter an apologia. Q Mm-hmm. EFTA00009211

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 396 A And this was recently, and I say this, because when folks read this letter, they read it as, this is why, you know, we had these -- they -- I think sometimes they selectively read language. The prosecutors and agents in this case -- and what followed was a yearlong assault. I used the word assault as it was more aggressive than anything in which I or the prosecutors in my office had previously encountered. Excuse me. Mr. Epstein hired an army of legal Superstars, Harvard Professor Dershowitz, former judge and then Pepperdine lodging Ken Starr, former deputy assistant to the president then Kirkland & Ellis law partner Jay Lefkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors that formerly worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office, the child exploitation section -- I'm not sure who that was -- of the Department of Defense, and they -- Q Department of Defense? A No, no, in the child exploitation and obscenity section of the Justice Department. Defense attorneys next requested a meeting with me. And they read that as saying these -- there were all these powerful lawyers in the case, but they don't then go on to talk about, despite this army of attorneys, the office held firm to the terms first presented to Mr. Black in the original meeting. Q So, is it your -- so, what I understand you saying EFTA00009212

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 397 is that the panoply, this pantheon of attorneys did not have the influence on you that's alleged? A And -- and the purpose of this letter was to say, despite all this -- Q Right. A -- we held firm. So, how can you say that there's influence if we held firm? Q So, the -- A And I would -- I would also -- I'm sorry. Q No, no. A I would also note, and I think we talked about this, that those terms were developed before many of these individuals came on board. Q Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. A So, it's not like these terms were developed because, oh, now these individuals are on board. Q All right. And we haven't, of course, talked about the whole work release issue, but -- A Yeah. -- I think that speaks -- the record -- Yeah. -- speaks for itself on that. Yeah. BY MS. QR: So, I'm not sure I'm clear. Did you have an EFTA00009213

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 398 interview, or give a -- have a conversation with Ms. aside -- or, just sent her this letter? A I spoke to her briefly saying, I'm not going to speak on the record. I'm not going to address even off the record details of this case, but I will provide a letter to you. I've had a lot of requests over the years to talk about this case. There were enough requests coming that I thought it important to provide a statement to defend the actions of the office. I didn’t want it to be to one reporter in particular, because I did not want to play favorites. And so, I provided a to whom it may concern letter that was a public letter, but then I gave it to her. MS. MJ: «All right. Go on? BY MS. QB: Q And just one thing on the work release issue. Did you tell the defense that -- that the U.s. Attorney's Office would not object if he got work release as long as he was treated like every -- like every other defendant? A So -- so, I don't recall what I may or may not have said specifically around work release. My recollection of our general position is, you're pleading in state court to incarceration of 18 -- it's now 18 months, it was 24. Whether it was 18 or 24, this would have been -- any conversation I would have had would have been after the EFTA00009214

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 399 agreement was signed. It's our expectation that he be treated just like everyone else, if -- if it was typical to provide that kind of work release in these cases, that would have been news to me. I certainly would not have expected that, and I think based on our subsequent communications with the state attorney's office, that was not what our office envisioned. By the same token, I don't think our office envisioned that he be treated worth that the typical offender. Q Well, did you know that Hi was in fact trying to make sure that he didn't get work release? A Yes. And so, I don't see any reason why I would have contradicted that, is -- is my point. Q All right. You've mentioned a number of times that the sexual offender registration was the -- one of the three important prongs for you and the office. A Yes. Q What was it that you saw the sex offender registration as accomplishing? A So, to some extent it's putting the community on notice that, irrespective of whether he's in Florida or elsewhere, he's a registered sex offender. To some extent, I don't know if this is -- but I'll say it anyhow. This was a serious crime, and there is a public sanction associated with this, and I thought to the extent that he committed the types EFTA00009215

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 400 of acts that typically are associated with registration that that should go forward, but the primary motivation there was, put the public on notice that he is a registered sex offender. Q And did you see any conflict with that as being a goal with the provision in the NPA that was -- that the NPA was going to be kept confidential, and the communications in which the -- in which the U.S. Attorney's Office was having with the defense about continuing to keep things confidential? Do you see any inconsistency between those two? A No, in that I -- I genuinely was of the opinion that this NPA would go public, and certainly his public -- his state court plea would be public, and his registration would be public. And so, it would -- what he did would be known. Q And given what you know about these office's back and forth on notifying the victims, do you think, looking at the entire course of conduct of the office, that the victims were treated fairly, and with dignity and respect? A So, I want to be careful, not because I'm fudging, but because it's a complex question. If, looking back in hindsight, we knew that there would be a -- what was it? Two eight months period, when -- do we have an agreement, do we not have agreement, is this concluded, is this not concluded? EFTA00009216

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 401 Is this an ongoing investigation? How do we deal with all these notification issues? If we had foreseen all of that, I think I've said before, that -- that something I certainly think should have been considered, and it's very possible we would have done something very different. But that was not foreseen. And so, it's then a very difficult judgement to be made, because there is an agreement. There is concern as to if we have to go to trial, how do you address this? There is, you know, going to the inn affidavit, at least one instance -- and I'm merging my recollection here, and -- and my knowledge after the fact, because your question sort of calls for an after the fact assessment. So, you've got the 9M) affidavit, which points out that defense counsel did all they could, but is using this to impeach and weaken witness credibility ina case where there's already questions around witness credibility. And so, it's a very imperfect situation with discretionary judgements to -- to do the best, to sort of balance all these factors. Is that the best outcome? Probably not, but that's where the -- that's where we were, and that's why I think this case would have been very EFTA00009217

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 402 differently if -- what was it, October 24 -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- he would have gone in and plead and taken his time and served his time like so many other people have done as opposed to mount all these legal challenges that we then had to work through. Q And I'll preface my question with the -- with the fact that we're still investigating this. We've made no conclusions -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- with respect to this, but if OPR determines that your office should be criticized for its handling of this -- A Right. Q ~~ matter, does that criticism fall on you, or does it fall on your senior managers? Because as a non- prosecutor, you were relying on them to keep you informed, and for their judgement. A So, I was the U.S. Attorney. I certainly relied on my staff, but ultimately, I was the U.S. Attorney, and I don't think it's justifiable or fair to sort of say this was on them. I was sufficiently aware of matters that -- that -- it was my office, and -- and while I'll say that I was -- I might not recall this, or I was relying on A, B, or C for guidance, or to handle this matter, ultimately, I think those judgements always sort of bubble up. EFTA00009218

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 403 ss. Q In your press conference, you reference -- this is the -- I think July 10, 2019 press conference. You referenced victims, what they went through was -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- horrific, you said, and then you said, I've seen these videos. I've seen the interviews. I have seen the interviews on television of these victims, and their stories. Just to be clear, are you talking about interviews and television coverage and videos recently, or back in 2006 and -- A Recently. Q -- 2007? Okay. I just wanted to be very clear about that. The U.S. Attorney's manual requires us all in the department to conduct the fair, even handed administration of the federal criminal laws. What's your view as to how the handling of this case comported with that principle? A So, I do think it was fair, and even handed. We -- you know, after the fact, may look back and say that two year may not have -- you know, it shouldn't have been a manifest injustice standard. It should have been, you know, a sort of a de novo, let's treat this as a new prosecution. That's a judgement you'll all make, but -- but those judgements were made with an eye toward fairness and EFTA00009219

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 404 impartiality, and once those judgements were made, despite all the attorneys involved, and despite all the litigation, and all the -- all the stuff, all the appeals to Washington and the -- you know, we stuck to that position. Q Mm-hmm. A And I think that speaks to the way the office approached this matter. Q All right. We -- I -- we spoke sort of offline earlier about an issue that was raised in that press conference that was not clearly answered on your part in that context, and the question was -- and this is on page 15 of the internet transcript of -- A Right. Q -- that press conference. You were asked whether you were ever made aware that Mr. Epstein was "an intelligence asset of some sort." And you -- you in your response you said you couldn't answer it -- couldn't address it directly because of guidelines. Can you clarify -- first of all, were you ever made aware of that -- A If he was -- Q -- assertion? A -- I'm not aware of it. Q All right. Did defense counsel ever say to you that Epstein had that status? A Not to my recollection. EFTA00009220

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 405 All right. A And -- and to clarify, I also don't know where press reports from multiple sources -- not from multiple sources, but from multiple media outlets that I told someone that he was an intelligence asset. I do not know where that came from. If -- if I can just -- so, there are questions that I may be asked publicly, that I don't think it's right for me to comment as to what classified information I may or may not know, because that's not the kind of stuff you'd go into, but the answer is no, and no. Q All right. Without reservation, without any -- A No, and no. Q All right. Excellent. Thank you. A couple of final questions. As you can tell -- A Can I -- can I -- Q Yes. A -- address as second issue that has come up at times? Q Yes. A There are also media reports that this was because of cooperation in some financial -- Q Mm-hmn . A -- financial matters. I don't know where that may have -- I don't know where that may have come from. EFTA00009221

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 406 Q All right. Thank you, and we are familiar with that, what you're referring to. A Was -- was there cooperation related to financial matters? Q We didn't ask you about it. A Okay. Q As you can tell, OPR obtained many electronic records -- A Yeah. Q -- mainly e-mails, but other electronic holdings from the department. The Department of Justice, however, has not been able to find/recover a portion of your e-mail account as U.S. Attorney that contained e-mails received by you between May 26th, 2007, and March 2008. A Correct. Q A period of time rather relevant to this. We have obtained many records of course from senders and from other people copied. So, we have many of the records, but the fact is, that's a -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- gap in the holdings, and this is despite the fact that as you no doubt know, the law requires that U.S. Attorney records be maintained and archived -- A Right. Q -- indefinitely. Can you give us any insight, any EFTA00009222

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 407 idea why that might be the case? A I can't, and my recollection was after -- after several issues that took place, the department had some sort of records retention software that automatically retained these e-mails. Is that not accurate? Q There was a -- there was a switchover from -- Right. Q -- a period in which that record retention responsibility resided with each U.S. Attorney's Office, and at the switchover, it became centralized. A Right. Q And this appears to have sort of gotten lost in A Been caught in the switchover. I -- my recollection is that there was some automatic retention mechanism -- Q Okay. A -- and I can't address that, although there's certainly a fulsome -- a fulsome record. Q But just to ask the inevitable question -- A Right. Q -- did you take any action to discard, destroy, or dispense with any official records -- A Not -- Q -- related to this matter? EFTA00009223

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 408 A Not to my recollection. I think there's a fulsome record, and not to my recollection. Q All right, and is there any particular gap that you've discerned in the records that we've provided to you? A Not that I recall. Do you have the e-mails that I sent, out of curiosity? Q We do. A Okay. So, you have the sent, but not received. Yes. Just checking. And likewise, we retrieved from the federal records Right. -- records that were boxed up and sent there, hard copy documents, after your term ended, and there is nothing that relates to the Epstein case. There were records that were maintained that were kept in the main office -- A Right. Q -- after you left, because it was an ongoing matter, but it -- do you have any idea why there are not any in the records of yours -- A So -- Q -- that were sent? A So, I have a recollection that when I left, there were some binders that I passed along to [MM because it was EFTA00009224

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 409 an ongoing case, and we sort of had binders out that sort of had correspondence back and forth. Q All right, and you've already made -- we've -- we -- I asked you about facts, but you addressed a sort of a broader statement to us for the record about the case. Is there anything else you want to tell us at this point? A Give me a second to -- Q Sure. A sort of think this through. Q In fact, if you'd like to take a quick break and talk to your attorney, and that will be the last question. A Do we need a break? MR. QR: No. MS. aaa: Your attorney says god no. THE WITNESS I will -- I will follow up on this. MS. QM: 9 All right. THE WITNESS Nothing that I -- if something comes up, my understanding is that we're receive the transcript, and have enough time given the length of this to review and comment. vs. a: Q Exactly, yes, and for the record -- A Right. Q -- when the transcript is prepared, which should be within a couple of weeks, we'll ship that off to your EFTA00009225

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 410 A Mm-hmm. Q We'll ask you to review it, to make not only corrections, but also clarifications, and to add to it A Mm-hmm. Q -- if you feel having read something that it to be clarified or expanded upon, you're invited to do so. A And if I could ask one -- one other question. Is there -- and I'm not familiar enough with the way OPR operates, and this may be suigeneris, so you may not be prepared to answer, if there is a report as opposed to a letter, which is what I typically am familiar with, will that report be shared in advance for comment? Q I am going to -- A Or is that to be determined? MS. QR: «=I am going to defer to Ms. ina for that. MS. QM: That's a question that doesn't need to be on the record. Do you have anything else that you'd want to put on the record before we close out? THE WITNESS: I do not. MS. QR: All right. MS. MJ: «All right. Thank you. I want to extend our great appreciation for your willingness -- THE WITNESS No problem. EFTA00009226

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 411 MS. MM.: | -- to come in and help us with this THE WITNESS So, so, let me -- now that we're off the record, let me say -- MS. MMM.: ss are we off the record? THE REPORTER: Not yet. THE WITNESS Not yet? Oh. MS. BN.: No? THE REPORTER: You didn't say it. MS. HMM: All right. That's it. We're the record. (Whereupon, at 8:38 p.m. the interview of R. Alexander Acosta was concluded.) * * * * * EFTA00009227

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 412 CERTIFICATE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) I, Beth Roots, Notary Public, before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing pages was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was reported by me by electronic record, and thereafter reduced to typewritten form; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action. Beth Roots Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia My commission expires: April 30, 2020 EFTA00009228