THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY INTERVIEW OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA Washington, D.C. Friday, October 18, 2019 Interview R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA a witness of lawful age, taken on behalf of the United States Department of Justice in the above-entitled action, before Beth Roots, Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, in the offices of the U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., commencing at 9:34 a.m. Diversified Reporting Services, Inc. EFTA00009229

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

APPEARANCES: On Behalf of the Department of Justice: Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 On Behalf of the Witness: GORDON D. TODD, ESQ. T.J. HERRON, ESQ Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street Northwest Washington, D.C. 20005 EFTA00009230

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

PROCEEDINGS Whereupon, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MS. i: So, would you tell us your name, please? A Rene Alexander Acosta. Q And Mr. Acosta, you're accompanied by your attorney, Gordon Todd, is that correct? A Yes, it is. Q And Mr. Todd, would you identify the associate you have with you? MR. HERRON: Yes, T.J. Herron. MS. a : H-e-r-r-o-n? MR. HERRON: Correct. MS. a : Thank you. Mr. Acosta, I'm | WN=| Sst sam a counsel with the Office of Professional Responsibility here at the Department of Justice, and with me are my fellow OPR counsel, i, i, -.1 Hj MN. We are in a conference room at the Department of Justice main building on today, October 18, 2019, and we're starting at about 9:30 in the morning. Before we start, I'd just want to put on the record that Mr. | worked in EFTA00009231

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 4 the Civil Rights Division at the time that you were the AAG heading that division, and I believe had an occasion to briefly meet you in connection with a matter. THE WITNESS: Could I ask what section? MR. QM: «1 was in the special litigation section. THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. MR. QQ: And I provided Mr. Acosta some talking points for a press situation that we had in that case. THE WITNESS: 14141. MR. a: Yes. THE WITNESS: Probably. BY MS. xg: Q All right. Thank you. Mr. Acosta, OPR is investigating two things. As you know, one, whether one or more federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office may have committed professional misconduct by entering into the non-prosecution agreement, or NPA, in 2007 with Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was under investigation by that office, and the FBI, for engaging in widespread sexual misconduct involving underage females. The second thing we're investigating is Judge Marra's finding of February of this year, 2019, that the government may have violated -- or, actually, he found the EFTA00009232

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 5 government did violate the CVRA, or Crime Victims’ Rights Act when it entered into the MPA without first providing the victims with notice and a reasonable right to confer with the government. You are a subject of the OPR investigation, that is, one of -- somebody whose conduct is being reviewed and evaluated by OPR, and specifically as U.S. Attorney at the time for the Southern District of Florida, you had the ultimate authority over the Epstein for a period of two and a half years, as we understand it, from the time the line AUSA | | first briefed you and then criminal chief HR «AS «i= uty of 2006, and until you were formally recused from the case on or about the 8th of December, 2008, after notifying the executive office of the U.S. Attorneys that you were seeking employment with Kirkland & Ellis, a firm of which two attorneys, Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz had been representing Jeffrey Epstein. Is that correct? A We may -- we may get into it a little bit later, but I think the characterization of my seeking employment is not accurate, we can talk about that a little bit later. Q All right. We have the documents that relate to that. So, that's what we're -- we're basing it on. A Correct. Q And I believe the term that's used is seeking employment. EFTA00009233

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 6 A That -- that is the term used in the e-mail. I think I addressed that in my -- I believe Mr. Todd addressed that in the letter that was sent to -- Q All right. A -- OPR. Q All right. Thank you. So, we recognize that you're not longer with the Department of Justice -- A Right. Q -- and that it is your choice to come and talk to us, and we very much appreciate your willingness to voluntarily do so and help us figure this case out. OPR provided you with a few thousand pages of records, e-mails, and correspondence and some other documents that reflect your involvement in the Epstein matter over that two and a half year period. Now that you've had a chance to review, I hope, those e-mails and other documents, we hope you can be specific in helping us understand what happened. Have you in fact been able to review those documents? A Yes, I have. Q Thank you. OPR asked you for a written response to certain questions, and we've received and reviewed a written response prepared and submitted not by you, but by your attorney, Mr. Todd, on your behalf. Have you reviewed his response to -- EFTA00009234

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Yes. -- you? Yes, I have. Q And will you now under oath subscribe to that response as if you had submitted to it yourself? A So, Mr. Todd spoke to me and conveyed the investigation that I provide him. I believe he conveyed that information accurately, and the statements that he ascribes to me in that letter I believe are accurate. Q All right. Do you have any changes or corrections to that written response? A No, I do not. Is there anything in it that you do not agree with? A Again, I think that the statements that he ascribes to me are accurate, and I agree with them. Q All right. So, we are going to accept that statement as representing accurately your -- what you would have responded if you had responded to us directly. Is that correct? A I -- yes, the statements, he basically gives my positions, and I believe that he gave my positions accurately. Q Perfect. Thank you. So, as we ask questions and refer to documents, we would like you to correct any misstatements in our questions, or any misstatements or EFTA00009235

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 8 errors that are in the documents themselves, because we want to make sure the entire record -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- is correct. Also, there's been an enormous amount of publicity about the Epstein case, particularly this year, including about the events and decisions made back in 2006 to 2010 that are the subject of our investigation. And so as best you can, we ask you to try to answer today from your knowledge, understanding, and recollections as of that period of time. However, to the extent you are asked or do speak retroactively, retrospectively, we'll just make it clear that you're doing so. A All right. Q Okay? A And if I could just say, one of the difficulties is with everything that -- all the publicity and all the documents that have made it to the press and in litigation distinguishing between recollection versus after the fact -- Q Right. A -- speculation, and I will try, but I would appreciate reminders along the way, because it's, it's an important distinction, but it's kind of hard sometimes. Q We recognize particularly the importance of it. Right. Q That's -- that's precisely the heart of -- EFTA00009236

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 9 A Yeah. Q -- our matter. So, Mr. Acosta, your professional background is a matter of public record. I have a couple of questions. By what state bar are you currently licensed? A So, I am inactive in -- I believe inactive in Pennsylvania and also in D.C. Q All right, and not in Florida? A Not in Florida. Q So, are -- is it -- do I understand that you are not currently an active member of any bar? A I would have to confirm with D.C. I said not inactive in Pennsylvania and in D.C. because I am not certain whether I'm currently active or inactive in D.C. I am not currently practicing, and so I would have renewed under either active or inactive. Q All right. A And we can -- We We We A We can verify that and get that. Q We would appreciate it if Mr. Todd could let us know your current status. I also would like to know the status -- your bar status in the period of 2006 through 2008. Do you know what that was? EFTA00009237

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 10 Most likely -- I can -- I can speculate. I don't know as a fact. Mostly likely active in D.c. Mm-hmm . And inactive in Pennsylvania. Okay, but likely active somewhere, correct? Yes. Yes, I think that's a requirement. Yes, that is a -- And so -- Q -- requirement. A So, it would be D.C., the distinction between active and inactive in D.C. is more minor, as I recall, than Pennsylvania where there's a large fee difference. Q All right, thank you, and we look forward to hearing confirmation of that from you, Mr. Todd. So, after serving nearly two years as the assistant attorney general in charge of the department's civil rights division, you were presidentially appointed the interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in June of 2005, and then as we understand it, you were formally nominated as U.S. Attorney in June of 2006, and after being confirmed by the United States Senate, you were sworn in by the U.S. Attorney -- as U.S. Attorney in late October 2006. A I think that may be inaccurate. I would have to confirm. When you say presidentially appointed, I believe it may have been appointed by the chief judge at the request of EFTA00009238

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page the Attorney General. The chief judge has appointing authority. Q Okay. A And you'd have to go back and confirm whether it was either an AG designation or the chief judge -- Q All right. -- which is different than presidential. And I understand, and again, I would appreciate if Yeah. -- follow up on that -- I -- I'm -- -- Mr. Todd. -- not certain how to confirm that. That's something that in all candor the department would know -- Q All right. A -- much better than I. Q Then we will pursue it. My point is that there was a change in your status from interim to -- you -- the U.S. Attorney with the -- with the full -- A Correct. Q -- confirmation. How if at all did that change in status affect your view of and your exercise of your authority as U.S. Attorney? A So, it's difficult to recall. You're now asking EFTA00009239

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 12 that just ten years back, but even further back. I was interim for a sufficiently long period of time that -- that by the time the change in status took place, I would speculate that I was, in my mind, the, you know, acting as U.S. Attorney whether you have an adjunctive interim, or acting in front of your name or not. You know, I -- I had great people. I don't recall when -- when [J came on board as first assistant, but he was my crim chief, and I thought for the continuity of the office it was important to promote him to first assistant, and -- Q He was promoted actually effective October of 2006. You made a series -- according to e-mails -- the announcement -- the personnel announcement was made to be effective in October 2006 naming i a as criminal chief, and IJ BJ as first -- A Right. Q -- assistant. A Right, and they -- they were both long serving professionals within the office, and basically, as my recollection, everyone just moved up one wrung. Q Okay. A You would know better than I, because you have those records. And so, sitting here today, I don't recall any specific way in which that shift would have impacted -- EFTA00009240

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

All right. A -- my thinking. Q You had not served as a -- as a prosecutor before, and had -- didn't have direct criminal experience is my understanding. A The -- that is correct. I had supervised -- civil rights, for example, had supervised criminal prosecutions but I had not been a line prosecutor previously. Q So, as the U.S. Attorney supervising a couple of hundred -- A Right. Q -- line prosecutors, most involved in criminal work, how -- what -- what -- what interested you most, or appealed to you most as you undertook your -- and carried out your duties as U.S. Attorney? A What interested me and appealed to me. So, the work of the office, I mean, the -- it's a broad question, but the work of -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- that office and any U.S. Attorney's Office I think is incredibly impactful to any local community, and I very much enjoyed being a part of the effort to bring folks to justice, to move policy initiatives. You know, I recall early on, we identified healthcare fraud -- Q Mm-hmm . EFTA00009241

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page A -- as one big -- one big area, and we had one of the largest out of our -- the largest healthcare fraud initiative. You know, we focused quite a bit on gun violence, and we did a great job on that, and it's one of those jobs where people feel very good about what they do, and it's great to be part of it. I'm sure what -- Q No, that's -- A -- okay. That's helpful. It just gives us a -- Yeah. -- some perspective. A Yeah. Q Was there any aspect of it that you particularly disliked? A To the extent you're dealing with personnel issues, I think personnel issues are -- are rarely the preferred part of any executive function. Q You mean the conflicts among attorneys, things like that, or performance issues? A Performance issues. Q All right. A And you know, when you've got -- in any large office, you get personnel issues, disciplinary issues, and those are never -- Q Mm-hmn. EFTA00009242

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 15 A -- those are never fun. Q Mm-hmm. So, we talked about the personnel -- high level personnel changes you made sort of after your first year there. [IRR MMMM} had, we understand, been functioning de facto as a first assistant while Hi Hhnh was not. He -- we understand 9 had been first assistant, but he stepped away, and Hit came in to essentially take over his brief until he was formerly appointed first assistant. Is that consistent with your memory? A So, you might have characterized that more strongly that I would have. Q Okay. A Again, it's difficult to recreate from back then, but there was certainly a transition period from Mr. | WM... and if I could, because when you said high level changes, my intent -- it was a great office. Great professionals. My intent in elevating Mr. iil was just you go from criminal chief to first assistant, and I don't recall Mr. [J prior position, but I know that he was also elevated. I think he might have been major crimes, but -- Q That's correct. -- I'd be -- I'd be speculating. We can -- I could guess it. EFTA00009243

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Q We can verify that. A Okay. Q Yes. What was your assessment of |g His capabilities, his judgement, and his working relationship with you on a day to day basis? A Outstanding. He had been in the office for decades. He was respected by everyone. He had a good tone to him. He was someone, you know, I wanted individuals around me that were respected within the office and that were trusted and that had been there for a long time, and then I think I was very lucky to -- to have that in my management team. Q As we understand it, your office as U.S. Attorney was sort of on one side of the reception area, and the first assistant's office is on the other side. Is that correct? A That is correct. Q Or, at the time -- A Correct. Q -- that was correct. So, did you and | | | have a sort of easy back and forth -- A Walking -- -- open door? -- into each other's offices multiple times a EFTA00009244

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 17 A -- kind of relationship. Q All right, and given that he had had experience throughout his career at the department in the criminal arena and you had not, to what extent would you rely on him, among others, for guidance, perspective, information, and so on? A I named him first assistant because I valued his guidance and his perspectives and I thought those were valuable. Q Okay. You also, as we pointed out, appointed iz MSstos succeed MB) MMM as criminal chief effective October of 2006, and he served for about ten months before he left for private practice. He left at the beginning of August -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- 2007. What -- you -- you did -- you said you didn't recall, as we sit here today, what section he'd come from. Right. I guessed it was major crimes. Q All right. Were you -- what was your assessment of Se A Outstanding as well, and if I could say, when I say I don't recall but I guess, when you're going back 12 years, sometimes you get an impression but you can't say it's a recollection, and that's going to come up multiple times today, just because it's a while ago. EFTA00009245

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

As long as we make that distinction -- Right. -- both are helpful. A Right, and so -- so, whether it's a recollection or a construction after the fact, I can't -- I can't say, but you know, I -- I thought that one of the helpful factors with MMMM is he had spent a lot of time -- and major crimes is the most active -- active unit. I assume you all know the structures of the office -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- but major crimes is not major crimes, it's sort of the entry level crimes, and I valued the fact that he had trained and, you know, so many AUSAs, and really spent a lot of time reviewing -- the major crimes chief as opposed to the other chiefs spends a lot of time reviewing the work of AUSAs, and so, he would be someone who is very experienced and able to get in the weeds. Q And he in fact was around -- during that time period, had gone back in the courtroom, if you recall, to actually try a major case. Do you recall that? It was a -- A I didn't until you -- Q -- major fraud case. A -- mentioned -- I didn't until you mentioned it, and now there's something in the back of my head that's saying that sounds right, but I can't give you more detail. EFTA00009246

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 19 Q All right. What was your assessment of | | | sort of working style, and particularly working with you? A You know, again, positive. You know, we didn't -- I didn't see him as often as Mr. a. but -- Q He -- was he located on the same floor? A He was located on the same floor, but not within the same suite. Q Mm-hmm . A And -- and that -- that affects interaction, but a positive working relationship. Q All right, and how -- how -- to what extent would you, as criminal chief, was he relied on by you as distinguished from Jj BMJ with regard to the criminal matters pending? A Also relied on. Depend -- that would depend almost on the matter for -- Q Okay. A -- as in a typical situation, he would bring things to i. who would them bring them to me along, and so he would bring things to i. and then depending on their discussion, they might both walk into my office. But he would typically run things through | | before coming to me. Q Were there occasions when he would come to you directly? EFTA00009247

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 20 Sure. That's why I said in a typical -- Q Okay. A It's difficult to sort of recreate the interactions, but he certainly could come to me directly, and in some cases, I would say probably would. Q Again, it being a large office with several physical locations, and we understand it, a very high volume -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- of cases -- A Right. Q -- and particularly in the criminal context, is it fair to say you didn't review every prosecution as it was brought? A It -- it is not just fair, but accurate. I recall a conversation with a U.S. Attorney from a small district early on at one U.S. Attorney's conference where we compared notes, and the interaction of an office with 30 prosecutors is very different than one with -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- a few hundred prosecutors. Q So, when you did engage on a -- on a criminal case, would you -- whether it was a planned prosecution or a case heading to trial, would you generally rely on written submissions, or would you -- this is really an -- EFTA00009248

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Mm-hmm. -- inquiry into -- Right. Q -- your style, or would you have everybody together, and talk about it, or would you rely on your most immediate subordinates to be briefing you? How -- which one of those -- A So kinds of -- approaches -- Q did you take? A I would say that really depended, and probably varied based on -- on individual needs. For the most part, I would most likely just speak with my first assistant and/or criminal chief, and assess what else needed to be done. Q In other words, you would sort of do it on a -- sort of on a verbal, or based on oral -- A Correct. Q -- interaction and -- A Correct. Q -- presentation as opposed to going through stacks of papers? A For -- for the -- I would say that was typical. EFTA00009249

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 22 Q Yeah. A I don't want to say that was the case every single time, but that was -- was typical. Q All right, and to what extent did you go out and about to encounter the line attorneys, or example? Was that something that you were able to do and wanted to do? A Yes, and yes, and you know, I -- when I started, I made it a point of walking every floor and meeting everyone, and in -- toward the end of the day, I would also if I could make it a point -- particularly of major crimes of just walking down to the floor and seeing who was there and what they were doing and -- and sort of popping my head in and just saying hi because I think it's the right thing to do. Q Okay. Okay. Was that a way to support the troops, or was it more a way for you to find -- to become informed about what was going on? A Probably a little of both, of support the troops, but also get the temperature for the office, see how matters are progressing. Q You at the criminal -- or, rather, the civil rights division, had experience with human trafficking and child sex trafficking cases -- A Correct. Q -- under your supervision. We understand that you brought that concern, or your concern about those issues with EFTA00009250

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 23 you to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that -- we know that under your tenure, the U.S. Attorney's Office had many successful prosecutions involving conduct ranging from internet child pornography -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- to international sex tourism -- A Correct. Q -- victimizing children in particular. In mid- 2007, you -- according to press reports, you set up a new special prosecutions unit -- A Correct. Q -- to focus on, among other things, sex crimes against children. Could you tell us what importance those kinds of cases held for you as U.S. Attorney? A Sure. If I could -- if I could just back up a little bit, because the -- the question goes -- the special prosecutions unit, and let me address that part of it. There are a few things embedded in that. Q Mm-hmm. A There's -- there's -- the special prosecutions unit was set up because there were some issues that -- that I thought were important to pursue in particular, and one of those was -- was sort of the trafficking issues. Another one was the gun violence, and the intent of special prosecutions was to have a group of individuals that would sort of be EFTA00009251

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 24 dedicated and not part of the usual major crimes group. So, it wasn't exclusively -- I -- your question may have implied it was exclusively for sex crimes, and it -- Q Oh, no. A -- and it wasn't -- yeah. No, I understand it was not. Right. Q Okay. A And so, I thought it was sufficiently important, and so, it was one of the -- one of the initiatives that we were certainly pursuing. Q And was that something that you can -- that -- to which you brought your experience as head of the civil rights division as well? A It was. I think -- not I think I know when I was head of civil rights that that's something that I'd put particular emphasis on, and I thought civil rights really stepped up and did a great job on that. Q Did you yourself ever -- I recognize you were never a prosecutor as such. A Right. Q But did you ever have experience being involved in a prosecution that -- sort of the nitty-gritty of the prosecution of that kind of case? Sort of seconding yourself to a trial team, for example, or an investigation? EFTA00009252

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page A So, if by nitty-gritty you mean seconding myself a trial team the answer would be no. Q All right. A There are a number of cases that I recall being briefed on and talking about, but -- Q But at that high level? A Correct. Q All right. The department set up in 2006 a PSC Program, a Project Safe Childhood program -- A Correct. Q -- focused on internet child pornography, and you appointed 9 MMMM as your first psc -- A Correct. Q -- coordinator, and she was also of course the line attorney on the Epstein case. How well did you know i a. and can you -- can you give us your assessment of her capabilities, judgement, and her interaction with you? A So, a few things in there. How well did I know her prior to appointment? I don't recall. I'm not -- I don't think I knew her particularly well prior to appointment. She was clearly respected within the office, and I don't recall but I can speculate that she was appointed based on recommendations of management, and her interest and some combination -- and prior work and some combination thereof. You asked me to characterize Fs -- EFTA00009253

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Her -- your view of -- Right. -- her capabilities, her judgement -- Right. -- her acumen, her knowledge of the law. I think she was a good, strong, professional AUSA. Do you have any -- did you have any negative -- you know, anything less than fully positive in your assessment of her? No. Okay. I think she was a good, strong, dedicated AUSA. All right. [i 2 -- A Yeah. Q -- was the managing AUSA at the West Palm Beach office. A Correct. Q At least -- and would -- and | | worked there. How closely did you work with | i, and again, that -- A Mm-hmm. -- assessment question -- Right. -- what was your assessment of him? EFTA00009254

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 27 So, less so, only because of geographic distance. Q Mm-hmm. A I would also say he was a respected professional. He had a good reputation. He went on to be chief of staff here at the -- at the criminal division, which I think speaks to how he was viewed within the department. Q Mm-hmm. A And so, I would say positive. Q Okay. So, now turning to the Epstein case. A Yeah. Q Now that your recall has been refreshed by virtue of the documents we've provided, before we get into the actual sort of documents and some of the details of the events, would you please give us a general overview of what you currently remember, refreshed, about how the case came into the U.S. Attorney's Office, how it was assessed for prosecution, and how and why the decision was made to resolve it with a two-year state plea that ultimately became an 18 -- A Okay. Q -- I mean, yeah, a two year state plea that ultimate became -- A All right. Q -- an 18 month state plea. Okay, so -- MR. HERRON: Before you answer the question, let me EFTA00009255

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 28 just jump in on the notion of refresh your recollection, which is -- of course has a very specific legal meaning, and I think to assert that Mr. Acosta's recollection has been refreshed generally probably overstates it. It's really a document by document, issue by issue thing. So, I'd push back on that -- vs. EN: =x -- MR. HERRON: -- a little bit, but the question is fair and accurate. MS. MBM: sf you're talking about handing him a document to refresh an exhausted recollection, that's not the process we're talking about. We're using it in a more lay term that, you know, if we asked you this before, giving you all these documents, you'd probably would have not been able to be as full in your responses. So, we're asking for your full response. Thank you. MR. HERRON: We appreciate the opportunity to review the documents, and Alex, in your answers, try to distinguish what you actually recall -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR. HERRON: -- in your own head versus what you saw in the documents. MS. EM: Ss vean. MR. HERRON: And that would make for -- Ms. HM: 9s thank you. EFTA00009256

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

MR. HERRON: -- the cleanest record. THE WITNESS: Okay. So, three parts. How come into the office? How did -- I'm sorry -- BY MS. [: How was -- how did it come in? Right. How was it assessed for prosecution -- Right. -- and then how and -- how and why the decision was Right. Q -- to resolve it the way it was. A So, so, let's begin with how did it come into the office. Putting all the documents aside, I can't say with certainty how it came in. I can speculate how it came in, and the way it would have come into the office is -- I can speculate that the chief -- the chief rider from Palm Beach County would have brought it to either the FBI or to the Palm Beach Office. I'm not certain that I would have asked who brought this case to the office as opposed to the case is now in the office, so let's -- Q Right. A -- let's discuss it, right? The format, or the mode in which it came in I think is important, because my recollection is it arrived to us in the position that the EFTA00009257

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page state attorney had negotiated a plea, and that the reason that we looked at it was that that plea was going to be -- that there had been an initial charge that wasn't pursued, and that required jail time and registration, and that the plea that was going to be taken was a charge that didn't require jail time, and didn't require registration, and based on the preliminary assessment of the facts, that seemed -- that seems wrong. So, that's how did it arrive. The next question was -- Q How was it assessed for federal prosecution? A So -- so, it was assessed for federal prosecution, my recollection, from -- from very early on, and I'm sure we'll talk about this some more, is you have a case that, while technically it wasn't final at the state level, but for federal involvement, would have been final, and -- and so from the earliest point, we were thinking federal versus state and petite, and the contemporaneous record sort of shows -- at least the material that I got, the earliest communication was Mr. J telling me that 9 is preparing a petite policy waiver -- that Ms. | is preparing a petite policy waiver, and that's consistent with my recollection of how it was assessed, and -- and then brought in -- assessed, you know, does it make sense to go forward, yes, investigate, and circle back. And then -- and then the third part was the -- EFTA00009258

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 31 Q How and why the disposition. A So, my general recollection is the view was that if the state had followed through on an original charge -- I don't recall which -- that called for jail time and that called for registration, that the local police or whoever brought it would not have seen the need to refer it. And so, that was in terms of pre-indictment resolution, a -- a logical and reasonable place given all the other sort of factors, both the petite concerns, the witness concerns, and the legal concerns. And to that, I would add a fourth concern, which is it had already been reviewed by a grand jury at the state level, is my recollection. And so, to some extent, that's indicative of how some individuals may sort of view this matter. Q Okay. We're going to pick that apart. I figured. But thank you for that. You -- you asked for an overview, so I tried to just be very -- Q Yeah. A -- general. Q That doesn't -- that doesn't -- the second part of that last prong was -- was why a two year state plea. In other words, you talked about -- you talked about assessing EFTA00009259

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 32 the case and why resolve it, but why with a two year state plea? What's the -- A And so -- Q -- overview? A And so my general recollection is -- my understanding -- if I was asked, what is the best understanding that I have of why two years, is that is what would have been obtained in one of the original state charges. Again, this is -- Q How do you know that? A We -- Q How did you know that? A I'm -- that's why I say general recollection. I'm reconstructing memories of that 12 years ago. I can speculate that at some point, the matter came up, and I or someone else said if, you know, what would the original -- what would the original plea have -- you know, what would the original charges have likely brought? And someone said this amount. Q How would have said that? A I -- I'm speculating at this point. I don't have a recollection, but -- but that's -- that's my general understanding. Q All right. All right. We'll now unpack -- A Yeah, I -- EFTA00009260

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Q -- some of that. A -- I noticed. Q And by the way, my colleagues, we're all in this boat together. So, they're going to feel free to -- A I know. Q -- chime in -- A Yeah. Q -- as they see fit. So, the first thing going -- going to the intake of the case, we know from the records that -- and by the way, we've obviously done a great deal of other investigation -- A Right. Q -- and spoken to many people. So, || | briefed you and Jj BMJ pretty much when the case first came in -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- in mid-2006, after the FBI and indeed the office -- the U.S. Attorney's Office in West Palm had opened the case, but before Epstein was indicted. So, this first exhibit, Exhibit No. 1 that you have in your binder before you -- or, in your folder before you -- is that e-mail from HN Ss tos syou that you just referred to dated July 24 -- A Right. Q -- 2006, in which he's sort of passing on the information that Epstein has by now been arrested -- been EFTA00009261

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 34 indicted -- arrested and indicted by the state. Do you recall anything about that original briefing from | | a A I -- I don't. Q All right. Did you know at the time that -- at the time she briefed you -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- which is prior to Exhibit 1, did you know who Epstein was? A I did not. Q Never heard of him, to your knowledge? A To my knowledge, I don't recall having heard of Q And what did you understand at that early point the case to be about? A So, I don't recall the briefing, and so I can't give an independent recollection. You know, based on this, mean, the Q You're talking about Exhibit 1, and you're -- A Based on -- Q -- looking at -- A -- based on Exhibit 1, you know, I can -- I can infer that this would have been my general understanding of the case, and you know, and the key things that I point here is pre-trial diversion, which is code for no jail time, and EFTA00009262

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

petite policy. Q But this -- what -- Exhibit No. 1 -- A Right. Q -- does not make it clear to you that this case involved allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had been enticing, coercing, whatever verb you want to use, young, underage females -- we will for the record call them girls here -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- as opposed to women, and these underage females were being paid to provide him essentially with sex, or sexual activity or conduct, of a pretty salacious nature. Do you recall that as being essentially what you were briefed on from the beginning? A Again, I don't recall the initial briefing. I take it based on your review that there was an initial briefing. I can't say the degree of detail. I can't say what it was about. As a -- as a typical matter, I wouldn't be briefed when a case comes into the office other than being made aware, this is a case, this is what we're looking at. Q So, then, if you -- A Sure. Q -- understanding you don't remember the briefing, is it fair to say that you did have some understanding of what the case that was that West Palm Beach was pursuing as of mid-2006? EFTA00009263

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 36 A I certainly had an understanding of the general facts of the case early on. I can't speak to whether it was mid-2006 versus late 2006 versus 2007, but -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- early on, I certainly had an understanding that it was a case that involved, you know, a billionaire who was doing sordid things with young women or girls who were minors. Q (HMMMR MMMM anc the records indicate that her concern in bringing this all the way to you -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- and her first at that time criminal chief -- A Right. Q -- but sort of acting First Assistant ; | was because she was afraid of political pressure that might be brought to bear against the U.S. Attorney's Office in this case. Do you have any recollection of that being a concern that was laid before you? A I don't -- again, I don't recall the early -- that briefing. I've reviewed this e-mail, and -- and I can -- you know, I take it -- it would have been natural for me to say, should we approach the state attorney, because we had lots of ongoing matters with the state attorney, and it seems that MMMM said no for fear it'll be leaked straight to Epstein, and I assumed I'd let it be at that point. EFTA00009264

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 37 Q And do you know -- oh, do you know what he meant by it being leaked to Epstein by the state -- by Barry -- Barry Krischer, the then State Attorney? A So -- so, based on the context -- Q Mm-hmm . A -- what I would assume is that if the state attorney is cutting this kind of deal, and it appears that things have already leaked, because you know, there's clearly and article here with leaked -- you know, so, something has already leaked. Q You're referring to Exhibit 1? A Exhibit 1. Other things would leak. Had you ever met Barry Krischer? Sure. Q What was your relationship with him? A So, there were multiple state attorneys within the district. He was -- it was a professional relationship. We, you know - Q It was an elected position, correct? A It was an elected position. Q And what was your assessment of his aggressiveness as a prosecutor, and his capabilities? A On the public -- my -- most of my assessment with him was on the public corruption front, where we had brought several cases, and I was a little disappointed that these EFTA00009265

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 38 were cases he could have brought that he chose not to bring. Q Right. So, is it -- can I -- am I accurate in inferring from that that you didn't regard him as a particularly hard charging prosecutor? A So, I -- with any state attorney, I hesitate to sort of paint broad brush strokes. I don't think that's always fair, but my experience had been in the public corruption space. Q Yeah. A And in that space, I did not think -- whether it was him, or whether it was his office, I can't speak, but I did not think they had done as much as they could have done. Q Is there any area in which you thought he and his office did pursue aggressively? A So, as I recall, we had had -- we had emphasized gun crimes quite a bit, and really had had a lot of success moving -- moving the ball in the gun crimes space in Palm Beach. Q What -- A But let me -- let me just say, it's also very difficult to reconstruct time frames. Q Mm-hmm. A And so, I hesitate, because I don't know if that was 2006 or 2007, or -- but you asked in another area, and -- Q In this Exhibit 1, you ask whether it's EFTA00009266

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 39 appropriate -- appropriate to approach Barry Krischer and give him a heads up as to where the U.S. Attorney's Office might go, presumably -- A Right. Q -- with this case? A Correct. Q Why would you want to extend that difference to him? Why would it matter? A A colleague in law enforcement. I thought it was important for the office to work with -- with state attorneys as a general matter, and I found that the office worked best when it had good working relationships with state attorneys and with -- you know, with -- for that matter, the agency SACs and others, and -- Q Right. A -- but again, you know, rather than my asserting, I'm asking | and | | was saying no, and I don't know what the ultimate outcome was, but I would guess that we'd just defer and let it be. Q Turning to Exhibit 2, this is an e-mail that was forwarded to you by || |g the original forwarded e- mail is from (I MI copying MI MMM, ana sc essentially relates to a dust up between i | | and | | | ever chain of command, and her workload, but in the first paragraph, she specifies that, "When I first EFTA00009267

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 40 heard about the Epstein investigation, I spoke with || about it. [9 was not here." yo said that she would back me up on the case, but I knew what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to the federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney's Office isn't on board. So, I spoke with | | about the case, and he spoke with Alex, and they gave the green light." So, that -- that actually appears to be an initial contact with JJ that she's talking about prior to the briefing of you, so, way early when the case first came in in May of 2006. Do you recall being contacted or having a conversation with -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- i | about that case so early? A Again, the early recollection, whenever -- whenever it might have taken place, was I was made aware of the matter. It seemed a reasonable matter to pursue, and that's the level of detail that I recall. Q So, if JMNM) said back in the day that she got from you all the green light, what did you understand her to be being authorized to do -- authorize may be too strong a word, but -- A So, to pursue -- to investigate -- to pursue -- Q Yeah. A -- to someone, you know, I -- I'm speculating here, EFTA00009268

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 41 but there's a case, and they want to know, should we spend our time on this? And the answer is it seems reasonable. Sure. Q Okay, and do you -- do you recall making that explicit to her? A I -- I don't, and -- and it wouldn't have been my practice to -- to sort of make it explicit to -- yeah, go spend your time, as opposed to, thank you for letting me know, that sounds reasonable. Q All right. A And whatever, you know, details it looks like based on Exhibit 1, there was subsequent follow up between her and MMMM, ox with her and the management team, and they said, you know, go back, work on A, B, and C. Q Do you know what | Fe was talking about when she referred to something happening to a federal Prosecution if the U.S. Attorney is not on board? Had there been a case in which you were not supportive of a particular prosecution that was being proposed? A None -- none that I recall, and -- and I knew that what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney's not on board. I don't recall any federal prosecution that I wasn't supportive of, at least in -- in this context. Q What do you mean by this context? EFTA00009269

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 42 A It was my way of narrowing an answer so I didn’t spend the time to go through every office and every division. For the most part, as I sit here, I'm sort of running through each office. I don't recall any, and -- and if I could, based on this -- on Exhibit 2, I'm not sure that she's referring to a specific case as opposed to concerns that the State prosecution started at point -- you know, with charges that required jail time and ended up somewhere else, and it may have been because management -- Q All right. A -- wasn't. But that's -- that's a current -- a reading of -- Yeah. -- this, rather -- That -- that's my -- -- than a recollection? A -- that's my reading, not -- Q All right. Based on the early description you got of the case -- A Right. Q -- did you have any idea how many victims were involved? A I did not. Q Did you know what the name of the case was? What the investigation's name was? You know, cases get names. EFTA00009270

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page A So, I know that based on review of the correspondence, I may have known that then. I did not independently recall that. Q That being Operation Leap Year? A Correct. All right, and do you know where that comes from? I have -- well, I mean, other than February 20 -- yeah, I don't know. Q Well, the original allegations that came in involved 28 victims, and then subsequently iz advised that she was uncovering more victims, so there were -- A Yeah. Q -- over 30 victims. I-- Well over 30. A I did not know that. Q All right. You did not -- you -- as you sit here today, you didn't know it? A I don't recall knowing that. Q But is it -- is it reasonable that the number of victims would be one of the factors that you would have been informed of at the time? A I -- I don't know. I -- it all depends how detailed that briefing was. Again, as a typical matter early on, this is what is being done. I would trust my AUSAs and EFTA00009271

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

my management staff -- Q Right. A -- to pursue it. It wouldn't be a, here are all the facts associated with this case, just heads up. There is a high profile case involving a very wealthy man abusing young women, a state attorney is prosecuting, but you know, there's dissatisfaction. I wanted to give you a heads up, both to inform me, but also so that I'm aware in my interactions with -- with other Palm Beach officials. Q Okay. Based on whatever information you got at the time, did you think that there was a federal interest to be served by pursuing a federal prosecution potentially? A Yes. Q And what was that? So, the exploitation of young women. Girls. Girls. I want to be -- I want to be -- A Minors. Minor females. Q All right. I -- you know, for a -- for a sort of a glossary convention -- A Right. Q -- that we are using is -- and we can use interview, is girls -- A Right. EFTA00009272

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 45 Q -- for the victims who at the time of the conduct were minors, and women, for those who were not, even though the girls at a later time became age of -- A Fair. Q -- majority. Fair. Okay. So, here, we're really talking about the Okay. -- who were victims. Yeah, yeah. Q Okay. A Girls, minor females. I just don't -- sometimes that term is viewed differently. And so -- Q Right. A Yeah, so the exploitation of girls or minor females, and that certainly is an important federal interest. Q Well, and is the number and the breadth of the scheme -- the scope of the activity also a factor there? In other words, it wasn't one or two on one or two occasions. A So, there's several factors that probably go into what's the federal interest. The acts, the sordidness of the acts, the -- the number, the likelihood or the importance of registration was important to my mind because that -- that goes to future prevention to putting the community on notice. EFTA00009273

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 46 Q And were you aware that the individual in this case, Epstein, also had homes in other districts, and that there were -- it was an interstate activity on his part, the interstate travel and so on? A Il «= MR. HERRON: I'm sorry, let me just -- we're still in the original intake time frame -- MS. HREEEEE : Yes. MR. HERRON: -- here? THE WITNESS: Yeah. Again, for the intake time, I can't -- I can't speak to the details, because I don't remember what the extent of that -- that intake briefing. BY MS. |G But as I -- as I -- as I -- Could I -- could I ask -- Yes. -- a question? Was there -- was there a clear briefing as opposed to a heads up based on the record? Q Yes. That 3g TH came to Miami to conduct a briefing of you and -- A Okay. Q -- TRE BM i= order to tell you about this get from you -- Okay. -- a green light -- EFTA00009274

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Q -- to proceed with it. A I ask, because I recall an e-mail, and I don't know what the time would have been, where she's coming to Miami, and J says, why don't you stop by my office first? Q Right. A And -- and -- and I keep -- I would -- I would speculate that, why don’t you stop by my office first is, why don't you give me a bunch of details, and then we will walk across to the U.S. Attorney -- Q Right. A -- and fill him in, and so that would have been almost a two-tiered discussion. Q And is that -- A And I don't know if that -- if that -- the timeline on that e-mail is when you say briefing. Q Well, we are -- we are asking -- A I-- What it -- what it would -- Yeah. -- be. I'm speaking just based on review of the record, not based on recollection here. Q All right. So, you have -- to be clear, you have no recollection of any specific briefing in 2006? EFTA00009275

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 48 I accept that I was made aware of the matter. Okay. A I can't say how or in what context or to what degree of detail. Q Or by whom? A Or by whom. I knew the matter -- it's easier recollect at least for me what I knew as opposed to who me what. Q All right. All right. At this point, would you have had -- did you have -- if you -- at any point, did you have any reservation about investigating and potentially prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein, a reservation stemming from his wealth, and reported standing in the community at all, and influence? A No, and we had prosecuted lots of influential folks in the office. So, while he had wealth, it's not unusual -- UBS was in the office at the time. I mentioned several high profile Palm Beach public corruption cases. Q So, there was no concern about possible negative blowback in the press or the community or even at Main Justice if you went after someone like Jeffrey Epstein? A There was no concern stemming from his wealth or his status. Q What would it have stemmed from? A At some point, I think there was concerns regarding EFTA00009276

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 49 the -- the law, and we'll probably get into that. I alluded to that earlier in the overview. I don't know if that would have been developed this early on, but -- but that's not a function of his wealth. That's a function of the fact pattern. Q Right. Right. Okay. So, as you mentioned petite policy concerns, petite policy, petite policy, could you tell us what your position was on the -- on the policy as it applied in this case as you understood it from -- in the beginning? A So -- so, the policy, you know, on its face, doesn't specifically apply. Based on Exhibit 1, I'm now inferring, not recalling, it looks like either | | on her own, or || asked for a -- or, Mr. i. asked for a petite policy waiver memo to be prepared, in part on the assumption that the state prosecution may or may not have gone for it. I don't know, but I know -- I do recall that early on, this was unusual, because it had been -- he had been arrested or arraigned. It was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign, you know, state, saying you're not doing enough, and to my mind, when, you know, the whole idea of the petite policy is to recognize that that estate has -- you know, is an independent entity, and that we should EFTA00009277

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 50 presume that what they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except in the most unusual of circumstances. Q And what kinds of -- well, so, the petite policy exists because there's a recognition that there are cases that are appropriately pursued. I mean, you were the head of the civil rights division, after all. A Correct, which is why I say except in the most appropriate of circumstances. Q Right. A But let me add that based on this, I was comfortable, you know, saying, let's go forward, because the lack of jail time, you know, to use -- to use petite policy language, a plea that did not include jail time or registration would seem like a manifest injustice. Q All right. So, did you have any doubt that you'd get a waiver if you applied for one? A I'm not -- so -- so, I'm now speculating. I don't recall, but I'm not sure I would have said, is there a doubt that I'd get a waiver as opposed to, is this something I feel comfortable doing, or not? And -- Q And this being the prosecution, or this being the -- applying for a waiver? A Applying for a waiver. And so, you know, either main justice gives it or doesn't give it. That doesn't mean EFTA00009278

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 51 you don't apply for it if you think it's the right thing to do. So, for example, in the UBS case, which was one of our big tax, you know, prosecutions, we asked for a Bank of Nova Scotia -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- authorization to the Bank of Nova Scotia subpoena, and I didn't think Main Justice would -- you know, I pushed really hard, and I got into the weeds in that case for that purpose, but I still thought, let's go for it, and we did, and Main Justice didn't give in to it, and that's okay. That's how it works. Q Okay. So, they denied that request? A They denied that request, and I say that as an example of -- as a typical matter, I don't think what's main justice going to say, as opposed to how do we -- how should we approach this matter? Q I don't understand about what you mean by, how should we approach this matter. A So, honestly, how do I -- how do I explain this? So, I think there's a difference in saying, let me predict how main justice will come out, and follow that prediction, versus, folks, what do you all think? Okay. If we're comfortable with this, let's write it up, and let's see what Main Justice does. EFTA00009279

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 52 One is trying to predict what folks in this building are going to think. Another one is trying to predict -- another one is saying, what do we in Miami think, and then let main justice figure it out. Q And which is the approach you typically took? A And my point is the approach that I typically took is, what do we think, and let main justice give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Q All right, and in this case, did you do that with regard to the petite policy? A So, in this case, we didn't get that far in that we didn't have to submit to DOJ. Q Mm-hmm. 1 A But -- but we were approaching it not based on what main justice was going to think, but what do we feel is the right outcome in this office. Q So, as I understand, the bottom line is that you didn't -- as I hear you, I believe you're saying that you didn't stand down, or in any way cease or limit pursuing this case on petite policy grounds. You pursued it as you -- as you would -- A So, we went forward with the matter, although there were petite policy concerns in the background. So -- so you're setting this up as a binary -- as a -- did -- was it a fact -- as a binary, you did not limit yourself on petite EFTA00009280

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 53 policy grounds, and I'm pushing back a little bit, because I don't think it's, it's part or it's not, as opposed to when you look at a case, there are all sorts of factors, and it is a factor in how you think of a matter going forward. BY mS. a: Q If you had those petite policy concerns -- you or members of your staff? A I would say a combination of me and my management BY MS. i: Who? Who? I can't -- I can't recreate -- Q But who are you dealing with on this case? A Primarily, it would be my first assistant and criminal chief as I typically -- so, there is, you know, to sort of put it in main justice terms, you know, a line attorney has a deputy section chief and a section chief and a DAG and an AAG, and the AAG usually deals with the section chief, or the DAG. And so, I was dealing with my first assistant and my crim chief. Q Right, and they were there in Miami. A And they were there in Miami. Q And by the way, I) ENN scicst 1ine supervisor was | a. A Correct. EFTA00009281

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 54 Q Do you know why she was not actively participating in this chain of command? A I noticed that in the correspondence, and I couldn't speak to that. Q All right. A But the -- but it goes to the point that if you look at the -- she reported to i. who reported to | who reported to i. who reported to i. And so, as a typical matter, I tried to empower my first assistant and my criminal chief and my office heads and work through them, not bypass them. Q In this particular case with regard either to the petite policy -- A Right. Q -- or any other aspect, was there anyone other than that group of five, if you will, in that chain -- A Correct. Q -- from you down to iz | through mz, me -- Right. Q -- and | that you were dealing with? A I can't recall. I -- I can -- I can say as a general matter, it would not be unusual for me to walk down -- walk down the hall and talk to someone that I trust and say, hey, I've got this fact pattern. What do you think? EFTA00009282

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 55 Q Do you recall ever doing that in connection with this case? A I -- I don't recall the specific briefings or who I talked to. I'm just saying as a general matter that there are folks on my -- on the eighth floor that were in management that I would often just walk down the hall, and -- Q But do you recall doing that -- A I don't -- Q -- in this case? A I don't recall. Q Okay. So, we shared with you in Exhibit 3 a pretty lively exchange between SN SINE 27¢ Samy SammmEy You didn't -- we have no reason to believe you saw this before, but it makes some representations about you, and that's why we brought it to your attention. A Okay. Q Do you recall this e-mail exchange? I don't recall the e-mail exchange. I mean, you -- But I -- ~- didn't see it then. Do you recall having read today? I recall reviewing it, yes. All right. Okay. So, starting from the end, || HE «esins ia WMS Blackberry, which is a little EFTA00009283

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 56 confusing to begin with -- notifies | that -- of a -- of a particular conversation he had with one of the defense attorneys. At this point, what I want to do is draw your attention to the -- the comment, and his response, and we're looking at page -- A Page -- Q -- three. -- page three. So, in the third paragraph -- Yeah. Q -- "it was made clear to you by the U.S. Attorney and the first assistant from the time when you were first authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns about taking the case because of petite policy and a number of legal issues." And then later he says that, "You were never given authorization by anyone to seek an indictment in this case." And -- close quote -- and then on the first page, MM) Ss x e'sents her version of that original contact with you, meeting with you, at the bottom of the page. Halfway through the last paragraph, she says, "My recollection of the original meeting with Alex and || is quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case and the state attorney's office handling of it." EFTA00009284

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 57 "I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time and month," -- that -- I'm sorry, "I noted the time and money that would be required for an investigation. I said I was willing to invest time and the FBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the end of it," -- "to the end, and then have the office be intimidated by the high powered lawyers. I was assured that would not happen." Can you tell us which version of that initial -- which version -- A Right. Q -- is correct? A So, again, I don't remember that initial briefing, so I can't tell you which version is correct. I would also say that it's possible neither version is correct and that there's a little bit of truth -- now I'm just speculating -- Q All right. A -- that there's a little bit of truth in either one, because it's certainly possible to say, I hear you, righteous case, go forward and investigate, work on the federal nexus, which is what Exhibit 3 is saying, go work on the federal nexus and find evidence for the federal nexus. But we have concerns about petite policy and legal matters, so there's a lot of work to be done. Q So, what kind of a direction does that amount to EFTA00009285

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

for the line AUSA? What's her job then? A So, the job would then be to go back and investigate, and develop facts and report back. Q And if she developed enough facts, and supportive law to present proposed prosecution? A Right. Q Okay. A And so -- so, a lot of times in this he said, she said, there's a little bit of truth to both sides of the discussion. I'm just -- I'm just saying as a general matter, I wouldn't -- your questions are sometimes either or, and sometimes -- Q Right. -- it can be a combination of both. All right, and -- but in fact you don't recall? But I'm speculating. Q All right. Is there anything in either of those that two accounts -- two versions that you say didn't happen, couldn't happen? A I can't, because I don't recall it. I can't -- Q Okay. A -- speak to that. I would speculate that there's probably a little bit of truth on both sides that -- and if you read it closely, you'll see that | acknowledges the need to work on a federal nexus. So, that goes to, you know, EFTA00009286

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 59 where mm -- or, Mr. mm I'm sorry, I'm calling -- I'm using first names. Q Its' all right. A So, I'm going to just start -- Q This is an informal interview. A I'm going to just start using first names. I don't mean that disrespectfully -- where, you know, ma says, you know, because of petite policy and legal issues, and Hl is acknowledging the legal issues, because she's saying needed work to do to collect evidence establishing the federal nexus. Q All right. So -- Yeah. So, they're not as inconsistent as presented -- All right. A -- arguably. Q Back in 2006, in this Exhibit No. 1, Ia In tells you in his e-mail that the indictment target date is August 25, 2006. A Mm-hmm. Q In other words, very shortly -- A Right. Q -- thereafter, within a month or so. Do you know why the line AUSA, | | | COG was keen on getting the EFTA00009287

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 60 federal case against Epstein brought on a fairly -- on a quick basis? A So, I can't speak to that, and -- and can I -- can I ask, based on your record, was that that the -- was that the state indictment target date, or was that -- Q He already -- -- a federal -- -- Epstein had already been indicted and arraigned Right. -- indictment, so that's the federal. So -- so, that's -- That's talking about a federal indictment. All right. The point -- Correct. -- is that early on -- Right. -- the investigative team, the FBI Right. -- and QR BMY were hot to trot to get Right. -- case moving from a federal standpoint. That may well have been quite unrealistic given -- EFTA00009288

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 61 A Correct. Q -- all of the issues that we've been discussing, but the question is, do you know why there was some urgency? A I haven't the slightest idea. When was it -- when was it initially brought to the office? Q It was brought to the office in May of -- A Right. Q -- 2006. A That -- that would be a really, really fast timeline. Q Right. So, the question is, aspirational though it may have been, there was a hope -- A I -- Q -- to get it done quickly. A Right. Q So, the question is, can you think of factors that would have led a prosecutor to want to pursue -- A I -- Q -- this quickly? A I don't recall. I can speculate that Hill was very hard charging and wanted to do a lot, and -- Q Was that your experience of her? A So, based on this, I see, you know, so, Exhibit 2 is, you know -- Q Excuse me, would -- but just from your memory, is EFTA00009289

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 62 that your recollection of how operated? Hard charging? A Yeah. I'd say -- so, a lot of really good prosecutors are hard charging. That’s -- Q All right. A -- that's part of the job description. Q Okay. A And so, yes. Q Okay. Did -- so, in the child sex offender context, are you familiar with a -- the belief on the part of people who do that kind of case, as did iz | and others in your office -- that those offenders typically don't stop offending, even after somebody's onto them? So that there was a concern that he -- that in this case, Jeffrey Epstein might be continuing to offend, and therefore getting him off the streets was -- A Right. Q -- a priority? A I have heard that discussed recently in the media. I don't recollect that back in -- part of a discussion back in 2006. Q All right. Okay. Do you recall that i WSs ~~ sand this is just a, do you recall -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- that she periodically would give you in that early period of 2006, updates -- written updates? EFTA00009290

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page A I don't. Q Did you think that it was appropriate for a line AUSA to be shooting e-mails updating on a case that was under investigation directly to you and your first assistant? A It was unusual, and -- and so, so, did I think of a -- look, I can't reconstruct what I would have thought, but you know, you're asking not just what did I know, but what would I have thought 12 years ago. But I can say that based on general practice, it would have been unusual, and my best guess as to how I would have reacted would have been, hey, Hl this is unusual, is the chain being fully informed? Are feathers being -- Q Right. A -- ruffled? Figure it out, because, you know, you asked me early on to characterize WBBM ceciities. 1 think one of the things that I said was he was very good at smoothing things -- Q Mm-hmm . A -- over. And sort of the interaction, because he was respected, and so I might say, that's kind of unusual. Go figure it out. Q But you wouldn't necessarily jump that chain yourself, and be -- A I- Q -- in direct communication? EFTA00009291

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 64 I tended not to -- Okay. -- do that. 5Y aE : Q Would she have sent this to you -- something unusual, if she thought that this was a case that you wanted to be involved in? A Even in -- even in those, I tried to be, as a general matter, fairly sensitive to the chain, because I had found that if you start jumping the chain too much, even if you become informed, managers feel, you know, out of -- out of the loop, and that's not -- that's not conducive to sort of allowing them to do their job of supervising. It's a big enough office, you have to empower your folks to do their jobs. Q So the concern on your part would not be that she was communicating directly to you, but that as long as all of the chain was informed as well? A Yeah. I mean, if you're -- if you're ia |g or you know, if you're Hl. or you know, don't you want to talk to the line attorney before the line attorney talks to your boss? And so, it's not just informed, but it's respecting your supervisor. And it's a difficult balance, because often really good AUSAs are also the ones that, you know, just want EFTA00009292

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 65 to get things done. YS. Q Did you have any reason to believe during this investigative phase that fil BE was not pursuing this case -- this investigation adequately, appropriately, and fully? A No, I did not. Did you -- A Not to my recollection. Q Did you feel that she did not have appropriate oversight? A Not to my recollection. Q Okay. Do you -- did you feel that she had any resource problem? That is, did she have, as far as you knew, sufficient resources available to pursue her investigation? A To my recollection, yes, I noted her early -- you know, I noted more recently the e-mail where -- you know, that was shared with me by | | about resource concerns, and I would just note that I would allow the management chain to figure that out. Q All right. Were you -- did you at any point consider, based on what you then knew, expanding the scope of the investigation? Did you ever suggest or propose that instead of simply looking at Epstein's conduct in West Palm Beach vis a vis these girls, that the federal authorities EFTA00009293

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 66 could use their resources to look at other aspects of Epstein's activities? A So, I -- so, I think it's important to take a step back, and I was aware of any number of cases going on in the office, and based on what that stage of case was at, I would get more involved for a time. It wasn't my practice to direct AUSAs in how they should investigate, or what the scope of a case investigation should be. They -- the Miami office, before I got there, and after I left, had a reputation for knowing their stuff. It's a large office. It's got good people. I would assume that AUSAs and their management would follow their natural leads. Q All right. Were you aware that during this period -- and by this period, I'm talking about the investigative period from the time that the case came in in mid-2006 -- A Right. Q -- up until May 1 when | | Pit | ty put forth her pros memo -- A Right. Q -- and proposed indictment. During that sort of ten month period, or almost a year, were you aware that defense counsel for Epstein were reaching out to Hall HERE anc to MM WN «to «spitch their view of how the EFTA00009294

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Right. Q -- should proceed? A So, I don't have a specific recollection of who reached out at what time. I would assume as a general matter that defense counsel -- defense counsel were clearly involved before the case came to the office. and so, I would assume that defense counsel would remain involved while the office was investigating. I say that not based on independent recollection, but -- Q Right. A -- why would they stop being involved? Q And is it in your experience as a U.S. Attorney, was it common or uncommon for defense counsel to approach the line prosecutor and supervisor to make whatever pitch they want with respect to a prosecution? A Fairly common. Q All right, and was it also common for those approaches to be entertained? In other words, for the line AUSA and supervisor -- A Right. Q -- to meet with defense counsel? As a -- as a general matter, yeah. And did you view that as appropriate? As a general matter, it was typical. It happened before I got there, and is probably happening now. EFTA00009295

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 68 And you view it as an appropriate part of the process? Do you? A I think AUSAs need to have discretion to meet with defense counsel, and defense counsel certainly should be able to present perspectives. Q There is an outlook -- this is Exhibit 4, and this is something -- A Okay. Q -- it's really sort of a point of information here. This is an outlook that shows you and | and Pil had a scheduled meeting with Roy Black. A Mm-hmm. Q Roy Black, a prominent -- A Right. Q -- local criminal defense attorney at the time in the Miami area. This was a meeting scheduled in your office for the 23rd of February of 2007. Do you have any -- he was a -- he at the time -- A Right. Q -- was one of Epstein's attorneys. Do you have any idea whether this meeting related to Epstein or some other case? A I don't. I noticed that and I don't know whether it was this or another matter. Q But you have not particular recollection of meeting EFTA00009296

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

with him on the Epstein matter -- A I don't. Q -- at this time? Okay. So, I want to -- A And let me note, I think most of the correspondence was from other attorneys and not him. And so, yeah. Q All right. Are you -- are you okay? Do you want to take a short break, or -- A Yeah. Q Do you -- Let's -- what time is it? Oh, 11:00. Five minutes? Yeah. Five minutes? Yeah. Let's take a five minute break. Off the record. (Off the record.) BY MS. x: Q All right, back on the record at 11:12, having broken at 11:00. Mr. Acosta, we're going to move to that time frame I mentioned a moment ago, May of 2007 when ni WRENS swbmitted her prosecution memo of more than 80 pages, and her proposed indictment -- her initial proposed indictment, which was more than 50 pages. She submitted that by transmittal memo to her EFTA00009297

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 70 |g and you. Was that a typical way for an indictment and proposed prosecution? The memo to come? A To my recollection, it was not, and I don't recall that happening in other cases. I'm trying -- I'm hesitating, just because I'm trying to think through if there's -- I don't have any recollection of it happening in another case. Q Why do you think it happened in this case? And who caused it to happen? A I don't know, and I don't know. Q All right. All right. So, you -- when you -- before you saw it -- I don't know if you even knew about it -- you -- by reference to Exhibit 6, you learned essentially from | | | that the FBI was planning to do a press conference two weeks after that, and | told WS) bis office has not approved the indictment, therefore, "please do not commit us to anything at this time." Were you -- and eventually that e-mail chain -- A Right. Q ~~ gets to you, apparently by blind carbon, because there's no indication you actually get it. A Right. Q But you advise Alicia Valle, who I think was your press person -- A Correct. -- that, yO hasn't even finished her EFTA00009298

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page recommendation to i. i.e., we are a long way off." So, did you have any idea why the FBI was planning a press conference on Epstein? A I don't -- I don't know if I did. I don't recall Q Was it -- how typical was it for the FBI to plan a press conference on an indicted -- on a case that was being indicted at the time of an indictment or arrest without coordinating that with you and your office? A Under ily |g highly atypical. Q He was the SAC at the time? A He was the SAC -- he was the SAC -- I know he was the SAC at the time as of September, and I'm almost certain he was the SAC at the time. Q All right. And when you said that we are a long way off, and Hal hasn't even finished her recommendation to HMB. can -- do you know whether you had any idea that she had actually submitted her pros memo, and that she had made a recommendation to [ggj? A I can't -- I can't recollect -- Q Okay. A -- but I'll take my words as reflective of, if I say she hasn't finished her recommendation, then I assume she hasn't finished her recommendation, but I don't recall -- Q Does that mean -- EFTA00009299

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 72 -- that level of detail. Q “- as you -- as you look at your own words, does that suggest to you that you were unaware as of that moment that she'd actually submitted her pros memo? A That suggests that I would not have been aware that she submitted it. If -- you know, because it sounds like I'm saying she hasn't even submitted her memo to |g So -- Q All right. A -- we're a long way off. Q All right, so, is -- A But again, this is based on practice, not recollection. Q All right, and when you said we are a long way off, did that reflect, if you recall, an assessment of the length of time to get to a pros -- A Right. Q -- memo, a recommendation, and an assessment of that, or your expectation that even when you saw a pros memo and an indictment, it would be a long process before it was approved? A So, I would assume -- and again, this is just based on speculating from the way that I write, that I'm thinking she hasn't submitted her recommendation to ll iil needs to review it. He may -- you know, he'd probably want to talk to EFTA00009300

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 73 i. It needs to be scrubbed. You know, this could be -- this ain't happening next week. Q All right, but in your -- do you have any reason believe that whatever that process is that you were describing would be any -- any different in any particular measure in this case from the ordinary complex case? A So, from my language, I would take that it's the same process, but that there is a process, and the process hasn't yet been followed. Q All right. Okay. A So, it would be the typical process in a typical complex case. Q All right, and is it fair to characterize this as a relatively complex case, given the legal issues? A I think it is, yes. Q Okay. In Exhibit 8, you actually got the -- in Exhibit 7, you see that in the bottom part of that that you received a copy of the pros memo on the second page of that exhibit at the top. A Right. Q HM GN) «i's forwarding to you the pros memo. A Right. Q In Exhibit 8, you see that | | is forwarding or sending to that chain, excluding | a. that is, i. i. i. and you, additional EFTA00009301

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page items in Operation Leap Year, and that's a summary of the indictment, and evidence regarding the individual victims. Okay? So, as of May 11, you had before you the pros memo, the proposed indictment, and this substantial amount of additional -- A Right. Q -- information. Did you read the pros memo? A Right. So, I don't recall -- and I know you're going to say, why don't I, but this was a long time ago. I don't recall if I read it, or if I went back to the office and sat down with | | and | | and went over it. I can't recall from this far. I can say that it looks based on this that I was at the U.S. Attorney's conference. Q Mm-hmm. A The idea of printing this out on a hotel printer, I wouldn't -- I can't believe I would have printed this out on a hotel printer. Q Let alone read it on an airplane, correct? A Let alone read it on an airplane. That just wouldn't -- Right. -- have been my practice. But going back -- arriving back -- Right. -- to your office, was it your practice to take EFTA00009302

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 75 voluminous documents like this and go through them yourself, or did you rely on your senior staff? A I would typically rely on senior staff. They -- they're the experienced ones that have seen these matters before. They would go through it. We'd sit down. We'd talk about the issues. We might have it in front of us, almost like you've got all those -- Q Okay. A -- binders there, but you know, you're calling my attention to particular issues, and we'd sort of talk it through. Q And do you recall doing that in this case? A I recall having discussions with senior staff about this case. Q Who? A Certainly JJ and QJ at various points, and I can't say that I did that in May versus April versus June. I can't give you -- Q All right. A -- timelines. Well, we're talking now about May. Right. Because you've got the actual -- Yeah. -- process. EFTA00009303

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 76 A It would have been my practice based on this to go back and discuss it, and so based on my practiced, I would have gone back and likely discussed it. I doubt I would have printed this out at whatever hotel I was at. Q But even when you got back to the office, would you have had somebody print it out so you would've had it available? A I may have had someone print it out so it's available. I may have focused on particular parts of it. Q What kinds of issues would you have focused on? In other words -- in other words, some might go straight to the facts. A Right. Q Some might be interested in the legal theories. What was -- what was your approach? A So, I think that depended on the case. Okay. A Here, you had legal questions, and you also had -- had witness issues, and I would think those would have been the two primary areas. Q Would you have gone through the indictment and the pros memo and all of those other materials, or just relied on your experience seeing your people, | and Z- A As a general practice, probably some combination. As a general -- a general recollection, the concerns in this EFTA00009304

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 77 case weren't about the sordid details of what happened, because we believed he did what he did. The concerns were about some of the legal issues around it, and some of the issues in terms of testimony. Q Of the victims? A Of the victims. Q All right. On page -- A And I say that because that would have been what I would naturally focus on as opposed to reading the sordid details, because I think everyone believed the victims. Q All right. Exhibit 9 is an e-mail that you are not on, but that -- notes that Pill is advising Dini that you, MJ, "Has your memo and Lefcourt's letter." Gerald Lefcourt was -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- a New York attorney who was one of the members of the Epstein defense team. Did you know him? A I did not. Q Did you ever encounter him as far as you recall? A I did not. Q All right. He had, according to the documents we have, made two substantial submissions to Bil PT tts | and EES EERE = -- A Right. Q -- February of that year in an effort to dissuade EFTA00009305

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 78 | them from pursuing a prosecution, and we have every reason to believe and no reason not to believe that that's what is being referred to. Do you recall reviewing substantial submissions from defense counsel at this time attacking in very granular detail -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- the credibility of the witnesses, and so on? A I don't recall reviewing those. Again, I recall discussions with my senior team about issues that included the credibility, and I'm not sure if it's -- credibility is the right word, but how the victims would do on the stands. Q Okay, and who do you recall talking to you about that? A So, some combination of Jj and il would have bene the likely -- I recall the discussion. I don't recall whether it was J, or whether it was MMB °c: MMMM. but the logical inference would have been it would have been some combination of J and qyg. Q WS «MM bas told us that during this period, he was not actively involved in this case -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- but that Hl | was. Would that be consistent with your memory, or would -- A That -- sure, it -- I mean, they were a team. became more or less involved based on needs. EFTA00009306

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 79 Q And was there any particular -- if 2 was working with you directly on reporting -- A Right. Q -- on his assessment of this case, was there any reason for || HEB sto be involved? A I might bounce ideas off him. I mean, he was -- he was right across, so we worked closely, but you know, Hil was the criminal chief, and if he was in the weeds, Hl: I would speculate would sort of, much like me, defer to his judgement, because they've known each other, and they've worked together, and they had a good working relationship. Q And is it -- do we understand correctly that as first assistant, Hill had a brief that really encompassed the entire office? A He did. Q All right. A He -- so, he supervised the civil, the criminal, the appellate, and the forfeiture. Q All right. There is here in this e-mail that you did not see back in the day, Exhibit 9, a pushback from Hl WEBMEME <egarding the rush that HEME WEEEEEEEE is in to pursue the case, and he says, "This is obviously a very significant case, and Alex wants to take his time making sure he is comfortable before proceeding." Do you -- can you tell us what the basis would be for, or was, for that assertion by EFTA00009307

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

= A So, I can't -- well, I can't tell you from recollection what the basis is. I can -- I can speculate that the materials being transmitted Friday morning -- oh, I guess it was -- yeah, so -- Q The 11th. A Yeah. Q Friday. A So, Friday morning, it hasn't been reviewed by anyone in the management chain, much less approved and edited, and | | that Monday is saying why don't I have a decision? And -- and so, absent truly extenuating circumstances, typically, you'd have -- give -- you know, it'd go through the management chain up to the U.S. Attorney. And so, he's pushing back, saying, hey, it's been a day, or it's been a weekend. I'm -- Q Right. A -- I'm just reading between the lines here. Q Who had authority to sign off on the Epstein prosecution? To, say, indict? A So, as a delegated matter, || | had signature authority. Q Mm-hmm. As did -- as did J. as dia QJ, ana EFTA00009308

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 81 obviously I did. As a practice matter, this is something that would have gone through the chain, and that we would have then discussed. Q But why up at your level? Is it because it is, as | | FY says, "Obviously a very significant case?" A So, at my level, not only because of the facts, because it's not about the facts, but I do think that there are legal issues that -- that implicated policy, that -- that we were thinking through. Q And what were -- what were the legal issues, and what were the policy issues? A So -- so, the legal issues, and also factual issues in terms of the witnesses. So, the legal issues -- so, and there's an e-mail from | | based on the -- you know, the contemporaneous record that alludes to some of this. In my experience at the civil rights division, trafficking cases involved -- you know, I can -- I can describe some -- some horrific cases of girls being held against their will, you know. You had child pornography matters with young women, sometimes incredibly young, that the office prosecuted. As the trafficking laws were being developed, there was a lot of discussion about, what's the difference between trafficking and solicitation, and that discussion took place as the trafficking laws were being developed. And so, this EFTA00009309

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 82 implicated that, and it implicated the -- what is local and what is federal. Q All right. So, in the first, you're talking -- in the first category, you're talking about the individual charges that had been -- that were being proposed, which included both trafficking and coercion and enticement -- or, enticement. A Correct. Q All right. And in the latter, you felt that -- did you -- to what extent did the witness -- victim witness kind of credibility issues implicate policy? A So -- so, I think I said policy and victim in that. Q All right. A In that there was certainly discussion between me and my management about concerns as to how these victims would sort of stand up in court. Q So, what would have -- what would make you comfortable before -- before proceeding? What would make you -- what at that point would have made you comfortable about proceeding? A So, I think that at this point, I don't think it's what would or would not have made me comfortable, and I'm speculating here. I think it's, it came in on Friday, let's talk this through. Q But there -- but you've just identified for us EFTA00009310

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

issues that -- A Issues that -- in your mind -- we would have -- had to be resolved. wanted to talk through. Q All right. Okay. At that point, did you -- to your recollection, have any doubt that some form of indictment or charging instrument against Epstein was likely to be -- become viable? A So, I don't -- it was a case that I thought it very important that we do something. How that something played out, I think had all along been a matter of discussion. Q As something other than what the U.S. Attorney's Office does, which is prosecute? A Well -- well, no, I mean, what the U.S. Attorney's Office does is ensure that justice is served. Q Right. A And whether -- and in partnership with state attorneys, and sometimes that means state attorneys take the lead. Sometimes that means the U.S. Attorney's Office takes the lead, and it -- and a lot of times, we actually had, you know, we -- we would share staff, because sometimes it made sense for -- you know, for one part of the other to take the lead. EFTA00009311

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 84 So, writ large, I thought throughout it was very important that something happen. There were these concerns all along. I can speculate that this is just a reflection of those continuing concerns. Q As expressed by you to le in the ordinary course? A As developed as a group throughout this -- I can -- so, if we go back to -- what was the Exhibit? Q June of -- June of 2006. A So, Exhibit 3, | says, "In that meeting, I summarized the case and the state attorney's office handling it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time and money that would be required for an investigation." And so, as far back as that initial meeting, there is the discussion about the federal nexus, and is this a state or a federal -- Q Right. -- case? All right. Exhibit 7 is an early e-mail from Ml you. Early, meaning it proceeds the one -- Correct. -- we just looked at, and early in that it's right EFTA00009312

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 85 Q -- receiving the pros memo, and you ask him, have you read the memo? And curious why you ask | Zz rather than i a . A I don't recall. I can -- I can speculate, and I have two thoughts that I'll speculate. One is, | her direct supervisor. Q Mm-hmm. A And I might be thinking -- Q Second line supervisor. A Her second line supervisor, so why is |_| sending me this? [MMM, have you read this? I.e., did you jump the chain? Secondly, I think it -- I may have wanted to have multiple opinions on this. Q Mm-hmm. A It's most likely that I had talked to A. already, because i and I talked more often, and I'm asking another person in the management chain, hey, what do you think? Let's have multiple opinions on the table here. Q Well, this is the first time other than | | that we see you getting a recommendation. A Right. Q When || | says, he thinks that you should charge him -- you, the office, should charge Epstein. He has issues with the charging strategy proposed by | ss but one, he says, "We all need to get on the same page as to EFTA00009313

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 86 whether the statute's covered the conduct, and whether the conduct is the type we should charge. I think the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the statutes." He proposes that the office start with a complaint, which is not unusual, is it? A It -- it happens, yes. Q All right, which allows the defendant to be arrested, and ideally detained, and then the defendant is then highly motivated or incentivized -- A Okay. Q -- to work a pre-indictment resolution. That's what [ BM «is proposing. He also notes that it's important to -- in his view, to "cap him with conspiracy counts to make a plea attractive," and the court could give us a hard time with that if we had to dismiss indicted counts. A Right. Q Okay. The proposed indictment included one conspiracy -- a conspiracy that has a five year -- A Five year cap. Q -- statutory maximum, and this notion is that Epstein be charged with a five-year conspiracy count, and take it from there. Do you know what he was referring to when he noted that a court could give you a hard time in dismissing indicted counts in this case? EFTA00009314

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 87 A So -- so, as a typical matter, once there's an indictment, the -- a pre-indictment -- well, by definition, a pre-indictment resolution comes off the table, but in cases of this nature, the resolutions tend to happen before indictment, because once the indictment is done, at least in South Florida, dismissal of charges -- for example, if -- you know, if | is saying, let's think about a 371 with a five year cap a rule 11 -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- that's something that South Florida judges, they tend not to -- you know, dismissing a number of counts, and then doing a rule 11 is not something that judges tend to do. Q All right. Two -- two pieces to that. One is -- A Okay. Q -- the issue of dismissing substantive -- A Right. Q -- counts -- substantive counts. Is that -- was that a particular concern in this case because of the nature of the conduct represented in the -- A So -- Q -- substantive counts? A -- so, SO, your question -- you asked a general question, and then now you're moving to a -- Q Right. A -- specific. As a general matter, not just in this EFTA00009315

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 88 case, but in other cases, it is -- it was rare that the office after an -- in cases like this, after a full charge was done, that that substantive counts were dismissed. So, for example, in the public corruption cases that I referenced earlier out of Palm Beach, those were all negotiated pre- indictment, and agreed to, and then by the time the -- the case was indicted, it was all -- it was all sort of set on auto-pilot. Q So, typically, in my experience, the -- a disposition like that is -- results in a criminal information, not an indictment. A Correct, and -- Q Are you saying that you would go ahead and indict A No, no, no, what I'm saying is that they were -- it was all negotiated in advance, and then there was an information -- Q Oh, okay. A -- and the information would go forward, not an indictment. Q All right. A And so, that is how a number of high profile cases typically proceeded, as opposed to indict and dismiss. Q And that is the experience of the Southern District of Florida in general? EFTA00009316

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 89 A It -- it was in particularly the Palm Beach office with other high profile cases that were there at the time. Q Do you recall any case in which a judge in an indicted case refused to dismiss counts when the government -- A Yeah. Q -- in an indictment under those circumstances? A I don't recall specific cases, but I can -- I can say that typically in the higher profile cases you'd negotiated with opposing counsel, presenting information. The information would have agreed to an agreed to guideline, and it would proceed in that way. Q Understood, but in this case, I'm focusing on the assertion by 9 MMMM that the court could give us a hard time, and that's a little different from, you know, exercising discretion to negotiate and proceed by information. So, is there any judge that -- that was particularly concerning with regard to an unwillingness to -- A I -- Q -- dismiss? A I don't -- so, first, this is 12 years ago, and I don't recall any specific judge, but I can -- I can sort of that say that was not the practice of the office. The Practice of the office was to proceed by information rather than indictment with dismissal, because there is more -- EFTA00009317

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 90 there is -- there -- you can -- you can -- you can lay out more what you've negotiated. I think later there's a letter from 9M that sort of presents the same perspective. Q All right. In -- MS. QM: 9 One moment? MS. QM: «Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Yeah. BY MS. Ea : Q You said in cases of this nature, the resolution happens before indicting. What is the -- this cases of this nature? A Higher profile. Higher profile cases. Q So, not necessarily sex offense cases? A Not necessarily sex offense, no, no, no, higher -- higher profile cases where -- Q And this made -- this was a higher profile case because -- A This was a -- just, a -- so, I would say it's a combination of all of the above, and to my mind, one of the -- one of the parts of this case is the legal theories were, if not novel, they were novel within the Southern District of Florida. At least, some of the legal theories, and I -- we'll probably get into that. Q Did his wealth make it a high profile case? Well, it was clearly in the paper. And so, that EFTA00009318

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 91 made it a high profile case. I don't think it -- I don't think it was his wealth. I think it was all of the above. This was a matter that the state attorney had been ready to charge that the federal government is now jumping into and saying, by its presence, that the state did not do enough. That in and of itself makes it a very high profile case. I can't remember any other instance, certainly during my time, when we jumped in and said, you know, the state dropped charges, and so we are going to do more. BY MS. a: Q As opposed to, or as distinguished from what you'd described a few moments ago, a situation in which the federal authorities and the state authorities kind of worked together to sort out what would be charged, where, and do it cooperatively? A And that was more cooperative, and I -- Q Right. A -- I would -- you know, I do recollect that -- and I think the record bears this out, that this was not a particularly cooperative relationship between us and the state attorney. Q Mm-hmm. Yes, we will get to that. Were you -- A If I could -- if I could return, I think your question -- the way you posed your question, you said a recommendation from Mj, and let me -- let me push back a EFTA00009319

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

little bit on that. Saying what are your thoughts? Have you read it, what are your thoughts? And he says, yes, we can talk next week, my current thoughts are -- is very different than, we've sat down, we've discussed this, this is my now informed position. Q Understood, and I -- I should have been clearer. I was referring to his recommendation that if you were going to proceed, you should start with a -- A Right. Q -- complaint. Right. Just to be clear. And I'm just saying -- Okay. A -- initial thoughts are -- yeah. Q All right. So, were you aware that || | bootlegged a copy of the pros memo to || Fe at CEOS? I was not. He did at that time. Okay. And did you -- did you know My EE A little bit. I certainly knew of him. Had you encountered him when -- he was the chief of EFTA00009320

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

the child exploitation and obscenities section -- A Right. Q -- in the criminal division here, correct? Had you encountered him while you were in this building also? A Most likely. I knew of him enough that the correspondence shows -- and I recall asking to involve him pretty early on. Q So, it does read as if you were acquainted with Yeah. Q All right. And did you have any -- did his opinion, his views as chief of CEOS and as || | YG who had been an AUSA -- A Right. Q -- in -- A In Miami. Q -- Miami, did his views have influence on your thinking about this case? A I don't think at this time I was aware that || had been consulted. Q All right, and in July, just so you know, and I -- and this is not something you saw -- he provided a fairly strong statement to -- by e-mail to 3, HM. anc HMMM in. which he advises that he reviewed the pros memo closely. EFTA00009321

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 94 It's terrific. He says Qj did a terrific job, and he says, "we agree with her legal analysis. Her charging decisions are legally sound," and then HER «goes through the different statutes, and concludes that they are all properly charged, and that although there are some issues, legally, that in his view we should, "We should prevail." "Our position should prevail." And that he also reviewed the arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel, and he found none of their arguments persuasive. So, at least as of July 18, your -- A Right. Q -- three levels of supervisors down were on notice that CEOS was on board and wanted to -- A Right. Q -- see the case move forward, but is it -- am I correct in understanding that at that time, you were unaware of that? A I do not recall being aware of that. Q All right. Okay. If you had been aware of it, if they had sent this -- A Yeah. Q “~~ pretty -- I don't want to overstate it, but it is a pretty strong endorsement of the proposed prosecution, would you have been influenced by that? EFTA00009322

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 95 A Sure, I would have. I mean, I -- I respected | sf and clearly wanted him to be part of the team, and later invited him down, and so, yes. Q Okay. All right. Do you know why they wouldn't have shared -- your people wouldn't have shared this with you? A I can't -- I don't know. Q All right. So, when -- as far -- based on the briefings that you got at -- in this time period when there was an effort to try to figure out -- A Right. Q ~~ what you were going to do, were there any issues of concern of fact or evidence or the charges that were left unaddressed? In other words, if there were issues about victim credibility, were steps being taken to address those? A Unaddressed is a -- again, it -- it's a very binary, and it's not about addressed versus unaddressed. And so, let me -- let me sort of come at it, if I can try to get -- there were concerns around some legal issues. There were concerns about how the victims would do when put on the stand. Q Right. A As a general matter, we thought there was enough if we had to go forward, we could, as an ethical matter, go forward. That doesn't mean that there was not value in a EFTA00009323

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 96 pre-indictment resolution. And so, here, you have |g based on this Exhibit 7, saying, we need to get on the same page as to what to charge, pre-indictment resolution, cap him with conspiracy count to make up the attractive. So, a five year cap, something less than five years, you have |] in her affidavit that was submitted to the court saying she favored a pre-indictment resolution. And so, it's not a, have you addressed everything, yes or no, as opposed to putting all of this, how do we -- Q All right. A -- how do we move forward? Q Right, but there is a binary point here, and that is, you either indict or you don't indict. You either present an indictment to the grand jury, or you don't, right? That's a decision. Right? A So, I would -- I would actually push back in that in many cases, it's not quite that binary. In many cases, you sit down with opposing counsel and say, look, we can go to a grand jury, and we can present this indictment and indict, or we can resolve this now. If we resolve this now, this is the path that can go forward. Alternatively, we can go here. And so, it's not an A versus B. Q I understand that nuance, but the decision to indict does -- I mean, you either indict or you don't. If EFTA00009324

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 97 you don't indict, it's for any number of reasons. If under these circumstances, the choices that are available are you have a case that's been brought in -- taken in from -- A Right. Q -- the state. You can -- you can decline it. Send it back to the state, make it go away, whatever. A Right. Q We're not interested. You can indict. You can indict and go to trial. These are the subcategories. Or you can indict and have the defendant plead to the indictment, or you can indict and work a post-indictment plea deal, which raises the issues you talked about, or you can negotiate an -- or you can charge -- proceed by complaint, and do as Hil HMMM was suggesting -- A Right. Q -- work a pre-indictment but post charge disposition, or you can work a pre-charge disposition, right? I mean, that's really -- A So, so -- Q That's the parade of possibles. A Sure, but that's more than indictment or don't indict. That's six or seven options. Q I understand that. That's how it will play out, but the decision as to whether to indict is binary. You're either indicting or you're not indicting. The -- the act of EFTA00009325

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 98 indicting is a -- is something that either happens or doesn't happen. That's all I'm saying. A Sure. Q Okay? So, what I'm getting at is, with respect to the indictment -- so, as you're looking at this case, you're -~- it sounds as if you're doing sort of one analytical track, which is, what do we do with this case? The other piece of that, and a track that could have been followed exclusively is, what do we need to do to get an indictment that is legally sound and evidentiary -- evidentiarily solid? I'd like to focus on that track -- A Okay. Q -- because they're not unrelated. A Sure. Q If you never get down the, do we have a viable indictment road, then you're not going to be able to do anything in the other -- A Sure. Q -- road. So, at this point, you had identified, and you collectively -- you and your people had identified some witness -- victim witness issues, and some legal issues. My question is, were steps being taken to -- I used -- I used the term address -- A Right. Q -- let me -- let me clarify, with respect to the EFTA00009326

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 99 witnesses, was the FBI and the line attorney with the assistance perhaps of the grand jury, taking steps to corroborate -- A Right. Q -- shore up victim witness testimony, find new victims, find additional evidence, and so on? A So -- so, taking that in part is helpful. So, with respect to the witness issues, I recall, and GEMM goes into much more detail in her affidavit, but I recall concerns that were communicated to me about, in essence, to sort of summarize my impression or recollection, these girls are young. They're impressionable. They are scared. Will they stand up in court? There are any number of -- there's any number of things that could be used against them. Some of them are -- and this is uncomfortable, but some of them thought he actually cared for them, and that's not atypical in these cases where they -- they sort of develop thoughts that are wrong, but -- but they are what they are, and were actually saying he did nothing wrong, and because many of them knew one another, how would that all play out? Q Right. A And so, it would be my assumption, particularly given, you know, how much work | was doing on this case -- Ms. [J wes doing on this case -- that she, in EFTA00009327

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 100 combination with the FBI, would be pursuing those matters, and looking to develop the evidence and corroborate, and throughout this process, it would have been my assumption and hope that she was continuing to develop the facts, because that can only help. Q And so as U.S. Attorney, would it indeed have been your expectation? A Yes. Q And the expectation that her -- that all those interim supervisors would have been supporting her and encouraging her and guiding her? A It would have been, and that -- that's what happens in typical cases. Q Right. A Just because we're having a legal discussion doesn't mean you stop pursuing leads. Q All right. Let me stick with the evidence piece of that. Yeah. I'm going to keep these -- Helpful. Q -- strains going. You got a very detailed accounting in -- reflected in Exhibit 8 from | | of the different Jane Does, and there were a lot of them, and there were -- there were many counts in the indictment, and many EFTA00009328