Page 101 carefully -- the -- each -- each victim was tied to a particular set of criminal activity. In other words, these victims were not lumped in an aggregate sort of formless petri dish. A Yes. Q They were individuals. [9 had met -- was meeting with them, *tindeed was finding new victims along with the FBI, and they were conducting individualized assessments of the viability of each victim witness, and indeed Til submitted a follow on pros memo, a pros memo addendum in July, and another one in September, and tailored -- continued to tailor her indictment -- proposed indictment to these individualized acts. The question -- when I -- when I hear the victims referred to in the aggregate, I wonder what effort there was to sit down and address each individual victim, because there were so many, and a credibility issue that could be very troubling with one victim, if -- or, two victims, or four victims -- A Fair. Q -- could well be overcome by other victims who had, not those credibility issues, perhaps others, and if I may finish, that in the aggregate, when presented individually in total, a kind of a persuasive case could be made that would be impossible with one or two or three? Does that -- is that EFTA00009329

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 102 A So, that is fair, and I think -- and your point that we shouldn't sort of talk about the victims in aggregate is a fair point. I would -- I would respond, and Ms. WHS Goes into this in her affidavit a little bit, and I've got it -- and I have a recollection of some discussion of this between myself, and you're going to ask me who, so let me just say I don't know who. But the concern is when you have victims that know one another, to what extent would defense -- if you've got two victims that say A happened, even if it's similar sets of facts, and another victim that said he did nothing wrong, and another victim that said horrendous things happened, to what extent does defense cast this as, they are trying to recover, they're trying to do -- and so one of the concerns was when you have victims that know one another, that brought one another in, even if you've got similar patterns, if some of them cast doubt, how would that be taken by -- by the jury? Q Is that assessment or analysis your own, or is it one that you developed with the people you talked to about this case? A So, that -- that assessment would have been, in my general recollection, but also based on my practice, that kind of witness assessment is the kind of thing that I would have relied more on the AUSA -- on my management team for, EFTA00009330

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 103 because that was more within their -- their area of expertise. Q Right, and Qj QM in particular was known as a trial attorney. A Right. Q Correct? Right. Do you recall having discussions with HERE about A He would have been the logical -- Q Right. A -- person. I know that we had those discussions, and we talked about what happened, how will they -- how will they play out at trial, and -- and the takeaway was, it could play out well, it could not play out well. Q So, as of the time that all -- A And again, I say they as a collective. Q Right. A Understanding that some would say exonerating things. Some would have contradictory statements. Some may not want to testify, and -- and so, that conversation was had. Q So, was had, it -- you and Hl talked about it? A I can't say -- J and I can say, I recall the discussion, you know, I don't know -- 12 years ago, you might EFTA00009331

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 104 recall a discussion from 12 years ago. What -- what you resented to me, for the record, I'm pointing to , or I'm Pp P g indicating JM, the -- the issue about civil rights, do you recall who else was in the room or wasn't in the room at the time? Q I-- Yeah, I -- It's a rhetorical question. It's a rhetorical question. We'll take it, I guess. But -- Yes. ~~ you know, it's very -- it -- one can remember substance without remembering who was in the room at the time. Q And understanding -- A Right. Q -- that this was one case of thousands that were under your -- A Correct. Q ~~ authority, although a Particularly sensitive and high profile one, but the -- a -- the question to you is, do you know what individualized assessment | | Vii tt | did of the victim witnesses? A I -- I can't speak to that. | EFTA00009332

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 105 Q Do you know whether he actually met with any of the victim witnesses? A I can't speak to that. Q Do you know whether || WM) went to west Palm and sat down and actually went through the evidence as to each one of the potential -- A i- Q -- witnesses? I can't speak to that. Do you know any of that information as to || Pg A Again, I can't -- I can't speak to that. I would -- I would say that -- that i was first assistant, and to the extent he relied on the criminal chief, that would be -- he used to be criminal chief, and so -- Q Right. A -- he would naturally view the role of criminal chief as being important, and someone that would naturally review matters before they went to the first assistant. Q Okay. So, when you talk -- when you were -- as you recall, having these conversations about the -- the victim issues, as -- as matters of evidence, it -- it -- you cannot tell us what the basis for HEE ME) analysis was? A I can't. I mean, as a general matter, I don't recall the specific. As a general matter, when I talk to | EFTA00009333

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 106 individuals about a case, I would assume that they had informed themselves, and had done the diligence necessary to have that discussion with me. Q Do you remember him parsing out for you, or -- A I -- -- you know -- I don't recall that -- -- the individual -- A that level of granularity. Q All right. The -- to finish my sentence, to the individual witnesses, and you're saying you don't. A Yeah. Q And by witness, I mean victim witness. Did you ever sit down with 3g | and have her present to you each witness -- each victim as a potential witness, and her individualized credibility issues, and how as a -- asa Prosecutor and an experienced trial attorney, im | was going to overcome those issues? A I don't recall doing that, and as a matter of general practice, Particularly when it came to what I'll call trial issues -- Q Mm-hmm. A ~~ we had really experienced individuals in the office, and that's not something that I would typically do on this or other high profile cases, because they're the trial EFTA00009334

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 107 lawyers. They -- this is what they do. I would tend to focus more on the legal issues. Q All right. I want to stay with the -- the witness issues, and the evidence of that for the moment. A Mm-hmm. Q In Exhibit 3, this lively exchange between in and i. she asks to make a presentation to you in the last major paragraph of her e-mail on page four. She says, "I G would like to make a presentation to the U.S. Attorney, 9 MMMM, and you, with our side of the investigation and a revised indictment. The presentation will address the points raised by Epstein's counsel, and will convince you of the strength of the case." Bearing in mind that by this time, MM anc MMMM had in front of them -- A Right. Q -- her pros memo, her Proposed indictment, this analysis she did as evidenced in Exhibit 8, but also the submissions from Jerry Lefcourt, and that -- that || had not had a chance to actually make a presentation to them. | | | response is on page three, his last paragraph. He chides a. and tells her that, "You may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with about this or any other case. If the U.S. Attorney or the first assistant desired to meet with you, they will let you know." She, in her final response on page one points out that she's EFTA00009335

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 108 not trying to dictate anything. She's just asking. Are you aware that -- bear in mind, you didn't see -- A Correct. Q -- Exhibit 3, were you aware that Sy EERE very much wanted to make a presentation to you and to ME anc MB I) about her case, and her evidence? A So, I don't recall this. Q By this, you mean -- A I don't -- I don't recall being aware of this request. Q All right. A As a -- as a general matter, it seemed that there was communications going back and forth. And so, she certainly felt comfortable e-mailing me when she wanted to, I guess is my point, rightly or wrongly. And so, I wasn't aware of that request, and -- Q So, are you suggesting that she could easily have e-mailed you and said, Alex, I really want to make a presentation to you? A I'm not suggesting -- let me -- what I'm suggesting is from my perspective, there was a lot of communication in this case, more than is typical. I wasn't aware of -- I don't recall the request, but there was communication in this case. | Q What do you -- what do you mean by communication? EFTA00009336

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 109 I mean, there are a lot of e-mails, but There is. There are a lot of e-mails, right. But a lot of them are because there are draft -- we have drafts and so on, but I-- -- we don't -- A So, what I mean by that is, I do not recall an impression that she wasn't being -- that she didn't have access, or wasn't being heard. Q To you? A Correct. Q You've already seen two e-mails here where she was scolded pretty seriously, and in one case for approaching -- A Correct. Q = ~~ MBB and you without JS BEBE being involved back when -- A Correct. Q -- MMMM was crim chief, and then here, she -- the -- what [BB MBM says to her is quite strong, isn't it? Would you have ever used that language to a subordinate? A You've seen my e-mails and my style. Q I think not. A I -- so, what I -- what I am saying is, from my perspective at the time to the best of my recollection, this was not a case where she was not -- where she was frozen out. EFTA00009337

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 110 This was a case where there was ample communication -- MR. QB: Well -- BY MS. x: Q Did MMMM ever tell you, hey boss, this line assistant, she's being a pain. You know, she's asked for to make a presentation to you. Do you want to do it? A I -- I don't -- look, this was 12 years ago. I don't recall it. Whether he did or not, I can't say, but I don't recall it. Q tf he or MMMM or even SS EENMNMENE hac directly asked you for that opportunity, would you have entertained it? Would you have agreed to a presentation from the line attorney? A As a general matter, if someone makes a direct -- saying, this is a case that I have worked, I need to sit down and talk to you, I would have said, yes. Q Do you recall any occasion when a line assistant on his or her own initiative came to you and made such a request and you granted it? A I don't, because it rarely got to that level. from my impression and my recollection, we had pretty good communications in the office. Q All right, I'm sorry, I -- MR. MMM: That's okay. MS. BM: -- cut you off. EFTA00009338

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 111 BY MR. F: You've talked about needing to respect the chain of Right. Would there have been any repercussions for a line assistant actually trying to approach you about this presentation? A I would hope not. I mean, it's -- I think it's important for line assistants to be respectful and to, you know, let their supervisor know, and issues -- you know, and to do it with -- with respect, and not go around supervisors, but I would hope -- I mean -- Q Well -- A -- not -- Q If she had raised it with a supervisor first, and that supervisor said, no, that's not your place, would you have expected her to have followed what the supervisor had told her on that regard? A Fair. Look, fair point. I'm not aware of this e- mail. I can't speak to that. AS a general matter, I would -- you know, going back to where I started, you know, I would at 6:00 o'clock walk around the office and say, how are things going? What case are you working on? In part, because I thought it was important to. YS. a: EFTA00009339

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 112 Q Did you wander up down -- up to West Palm and do that too? A Less often, but yes. BY MR. QB: Q You talked a little bit about the experience of your senior staff. A Right. Q What do you know about the experience || V) tty had in handling these types of cases? A You -- when you say these types, you mean -- Q Sex crimes -- I -- -- or -- I can't, -- cases involving children -- I can't -- -- or child victims? I can't speak to that. I don't know. What about [i EiaaaNE: I can't speak to that. or J NEE I can't speak to that. ay Ms. Q But you do know that J] BERRI haa substantial experience with child sex crimes? EFTA00009340

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

You named her PSA coordinator. I know that she had experience with prior cases. All right. A Yeah. Q Okay. We're going to go for half an hour more, then we'll take our break, and then we'll -- A Okay. Q ~~ come back. I -- and we will get back to that other piece of the evidence and the legal issues -- A Right. Q ~- and then -- and then we'll spend a lot of time on the alternatives. Haven't forgotten that. In June of 2007, there was a meeting that defense counsel requested of the sort of next level up from Hl ii ii § In other words, they had already made a -- A Right. Q ~~ presentation to the line assistant, and her Supervisor. They wanted to come to Miami and talk to, in this case, i and |_| | -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- and they did meet with them. Were you aware -- do you have a recollection of whether you were aware that A It -- so, I don't have a recollection, but it rings | they -- there was such a meeting? | EFTA00009341

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 114 a bell. I don't know if that distinction is a fair one. Q Well, I can -- I may help amplify the bell a little bit. One of the defense attorneys who was present there in addition to Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, and Lillian Sanchez was Alan Dershowitz. A Yeah. Q Does that ring a bell? A So, it does. There's -- Q Okay. A I -- I can't say it's a recollection, but it sounds like there -- it sounds right, and in my usual course, once | | was meeting with someone, he would typically have let me know. Q All right. All right, and where would such a meeting take place? Would it be in Pitt ty] office? Was it big enough? Or would you use the executive conference room? A Based on the number of people, almost definitely the executive conference room. Q And is that -- do people have to go by your office to get there? A They do not. Q Okay, and would you in a case like this make a -- as you said a moment ago, pop your head in -- A Right. Q -- and say hello? EFTA00009342

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 115 A Right. As a typical matter, I probably would not, because then it very rapidly turns into a meeting with me as opposed to a -- Q Mm-hmm . A -- meeting with -- Q Mm-hmm. Okay. A If that makes sense. Q There was some written submissions also submitted. Pretty substantial ones. These addressing more of the legal issues -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- both before and after this. Did someone -- and if so, who -- brief you about what happened at the meeting, and what was contained in the written submissions? A So, I do not recall a briefing. I would assume that, again, based on practice, there's a senior level meeting in the office. Based on practice, ia would have told me, and then afterwards, he would have said this is what happened. Q All right, but you have no actual recollection of what happened in this case? A I have no actual recollection of -- other than the meeting sounding familiar, I have no recollection. Q So, Exhibit 50 in this packet, it's almost at the end. It's the next to last, really, is a letter that i | EFTA00009343

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 116 MMB offered to the DAG -- the then DAG -- A Yes. Q -- in June of 2008, a whole year later. The DAG, Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, and this is -- you certainly recall that there was an appeal, if you will, a small appeal to the DAG's office -- A Right. Q -- by defense counsel, and | | | submitted a fairly substantial accounting of what had gone before in the case, and he also submitted a number of other documents relevant to that. He says on page three that at this June 26th, 2007 meeting, which he characterizes arguments, legal and factual, were presented against a federal indictment, and Hill writes that, "The arguments and written materials provided by the defense were examined by the SDFL and rejected." Do you -- is that consistent with any understanding you have of what happened at this meeting? A So, I don't recall, so I'm going to speculate, and the speculation is that by the time this happened, we were fairly far along in how we were viewing this matter. Q This being 2008, or -- A No, June. June 26th, 2007. Okay. You know, and as I reviewed the documents, I tried EFTA00009344

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 117 to establish a timeline, but clearly, by July 31st, we had -- you know, we had sort of concluded how we were approaching it. And so, I'm going to speculate that when he said the arguments and written materials provided to defense counsel were examined by the SDFL and rejected, it was they asked us to drop the matter, and we said we're not dropping the matter. Q Okay. Okay, and by the way, is -- just to clean this up, this letter was -- to the DAG, was signed by MMMM wncer your type name, as is -- A Right. Q -- standard but you're not cc'd on it. Do you -- do you recall why you didn't sign this letter? why it was sent by 9 -- A I do not recall. Q I just -- that's a -- that's a point of interest. and so, I'll draw your attention to -- A All right. Q -- Exhibit 49, which is actually dated the day prior, that is, June 2, 2008, and this is a -- an e-mail to you from BMD MMM, who is -- was and is the ethics -- A Yes. EFTA00009345

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 118 Q -- officer for the U.S. Attorney's Office, correct? Reporting back to you an assessment by the executive office of U.S. Attorneys general counsel's office that they did not see you as having an either actual or apparent conflict of interest that would necessitate your recusal from the Epstein matter by virtue of the fact that you apparent, according to this, intended to seek employment with Harvard Law School. A Right, or was considering seeking. Q Was considering. All right. Right. Should you seek employment, it says. So, is it -- is it reasonable for us to infer that this potential recusal -- A Right. Q -- was pending at the time the letter to Mark Filip was being drafted, and that's why it went out over Hin signature, and without you as a CC? A So, I would not infer that. Q Okay. A In part because it was potential -- and in part because JBM -- (MMMM had the facts at his disposal, and was the natural -- this was a very detailed letter. I did not feel that -- I'm speculating here -- as a general matter, things don't have to go out under my name, and some letters went out under his name, and some letters went out under my name, and the ones that went out under my name tended to be ones that I had more authorship in, and the ones that went EFTA00009346

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 119 out under his name in this case were the ones that he had more authorship in. And so, I would just say that this was the continuing course of that. Q Okay. Thank you. Minor technical issue. BY MS. as : Q Would you have read the letter before it went out? A Probably. I would say in my usual course, he would have shown it to me, but not always. Q Not always letters that would have been sent to the Deputy Attorney General's Office, or just letters in general? A Well, he would have -- I think he would have shown this to me because it's going to the deputy's office. The flip side is, I trust | I think he's a professional. Something that I -- so, an important distinction to draw, I remember talking to an AUSA that had spent time at main justice, and contrasting the experience of an AUSA with the experience of a trial lawyer here, and sort of the line was you can't send a letter from main justice without three letters of approval, whereas an AUSA in their case typically doesn't even get approval from their line supervisor. And so, as a usual matter, particularly in this case, i would run letters by me. That doesn't mean that every letter had to be run by me, and you know, I was certainly aware that the letter was being transmitted. I was aware of the appeal to D.c. EFTA00009347

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 120 had comfort in what we had done, and so I thought the appeal would be fine, and if I was out of the office, or if there was some reason that I wasn't going to be consulted, | | was quite capable of doing it without my review. Q But if you were in the office, it would have been typical for him to run it by you first? A It would have been. BY MS. a: Did you read the letter in preparation for -- A I did. Q -- this, and is there anything in it that is -- that in your view is not accurate? A I think it's accurate. I think the letter, as it should be, is an advocacy piece for what the office has done as opposed to a, on the one hand, on the other hand, analysis piece. But at this point, we're defending the actions of the office, and I think it appropriately should be an advocacy piece. Q All right. Do you disagree with any of the points of advocacy, or the points made in advocacy? A We -- we'd have to go through it -- Q All right. ~- paragraph by paragraph. Okay. Okay. But -- EFTA00009348

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 121 But nothing struck you so much that you -- I think -- Q -- recall? A -- I think he fairly presented the totality of everything to the DAG for the DAG to review her for whoever the DAG designated, and I think that was -- that was an appropriate presentation. Q All right. Thank you. So, now I'd like to launch into -- and before we break for lunch, sort of the core question. A Mm-hmm. Q Which we addressed a little bit earlier, and that is who at the U.s. Attorney's Office made the decision to resolve this case with an offer of a two year state plea, and why? A Right. So, how we got to the two years, I can't tell you, because I can give you my general impression. Ultimately, all the cases in the U.S. Attorney's Office were under me. Ultimately, I saw what we'll call that, you know, three pronged resolution, two years -- you know, registration and restitution, and ultimately that was approved on my authority. Q So, who came -- did you -- did you come up with it? Was it your idea -- EFTA00009349

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 122 Q -- of an issue? A I don't -- I don't know. The -- this is reconstructing conversations -- I'm going to speculate now. This was not, let's all get in a room and figure out the resolution in the next half hour. Q Mm-hmm. A But this was a course as things are discussed and there's a back and forth over the course of some days ora week or two, and then people get together and discuss, and a view develops, and then the office proceeds with that. But ultimately -- let me -- let me just sort of push back. Look, ultimately, I approved it, and so, I -- Q Okay. A ~~ accept that. I'm not -- I'm not pushing away responsibility for it. I'm just saying I can't recall how we got to, for example, two years. I can speculate as to particular parts of it, but I can't -- you know, but ultimately I'm not pushing away responsibility. Q I understand, and we're going to delve into that -- A Right. Q -- that two years -- shortly, but I want to turn back to Exhibit No. 3, in which sort of the statement that launches this -- what I keep calling a lively exchange, is on page four, the -- the statement from 9 BBBBM, and this EFTA00009350

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 123 is in response to an inquiry from to her management, not including you, about what conversations any of them has had with defense counsel -- A Right. Q -- about any resolution, because her plan was to talk to Lilly Ann Sanchez about working a plea to federal time concurrent to the state -- whatever the state time was, and in response, Hl tells her, "I told Lilly that a state plea with jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the USA," meaning the U.S. Attorney -- A Right. Q -- I believe. So, that's a -- that's a closed quote after USA. Had he discussed that with you? How did he know that that might satisfy you? A So, I don't recall. I can -- I can speculate based on Mr. YY course of conduct, I don't think he would have raised that possibility in a case of this profile without having discussed it with me. Q But you have no specific -- A I have no -- Q -- recollection? A -- specific recollection, but I don't think he would have done that without having come by and said. Q All right. At this point, bearing in mind that you don't have any specific recollection, at this point, do you EFTA00009351

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 124 believe you had any understanding of what amount of jail time was in play at this point when Hil tells Lilly Ann Sanchez -- A I can't pinpoint that timeline -- All right. -- to that degree. All right. Of accuracy. Q He also says later in this e-mail that he told this to Lilly Ann Sanchez a couple of weeks prior before the June 26th meeting. A Correct. Q All right. Were you aware that | | Bn had been communicating directly with Sanchez about the case, and specifically that he represented that you might go for a state disposition if it included jail time and sex offender registration? A I -- I don't recall whether I was aware or not. I recall at some point adopting the concept of jail time plus registration, and then plus restitution. And so, I don't know when that would have happened. Let me also speculate that the U.S. Attorney might go -- could also refer to, this is being talked about, no final decision has been made. Q Right. If QB BM hac made that informal discussion comment to Lilly Ann Sanchez without having told EFTA00009352

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 125 you, without having gotten your clearance ahead of time to tell her that, would that -- would that surprise you, or would you have expected him to consult with you about whether it was okay to go ahead and raise this? A So, as a general matter, yes, but -- and let me -- let me explain that. AUSAs on occasion, and because this is a high profile -- higher profile case -- a criminal chief may run an idea across opposing counsel and say, look, I don't have authorization. I don't know how the office will react, but it's certainly possible that X, Y, or Z may work out. And that's a very different conversation than, you know, the office will accept. And so, a lot of that really depends on how that conversation goes, and you know, certainly if he's representing my view, I would expect him to check on what my view is, if he's, as criminal chief, saying, this is something that I could Support. I don't know how the office will react, that may -- you know, but I can run it up the flagpole, that might be a different type of conversation. Q Okay, and did you know Lilly Ann Sanchez? A I did. She was an AUSA in the office. And she left about a month after you came on board? Was it that -- was it that quick? That's our information, yes. EFTA00009353

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 126 A Okay. Q Although she apparently remained a periodic present. A Hence, the wasn't that quick. Q Did you know that she'd been || Hal deputy at major crimes? A I don't remember that. Q All right. Did you -- what did -- what did you remember about her? And had you had any dealings with her after she left the office up to this point? A So, I remember that she was in the office, that she was a senior attorney. Whether within the management structure or not, I -- I didn't recollect until you just raised it, and that I can't swear to it, but it rings a bell that she was in major crimes, and she was someone that you would see at bar functions that would -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- she -- she was active in the local bar, and I would see her on occasion at a bar function and say hello. Q All right. Did you encounter her in connection with a case, to your recollection, in the period before Epstein? A I'm hesitating not to avoid, but I'm running through my -- Q Mm-hmm. EFTA00009354

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 127 A Not that I recall. Q What's your impression of her as a -- as a practitioner? A She did -- she did quite well after she left the office. She set up -- I think she set up her own practice. Q At the time -- at this time, she was with something called Fowler White Burnett. A Okay, so -- Q She -- A -- she went to Fowler White. Q -- subsequently -- A She subsequently set up her own practice, and thought she's done well for herself. Q Okay. Were you aware that [ER BBM had a close personal relationship with Lilly Ann Sanchez, both because they had worked together as chief and deputy chief -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- in major crimes, but also because they'd had a dating relationship sometime prior? A I don't recall them having dated, but I don't -- Q Do you recall knowing that they had dated in the A I don't recall knowing that, and in all candor, that's not the kind of thing I ask about. Q But in this case with her representation of EFTA00009355

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 128 somebody in a matter being ultimately supervised by Ig HER. | would you have expected IH to disclose to you that he'd had a prior romantic relationship with Lilly Ann Sanchez, a member of Epstein's defense team, if only to address a potential appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest? A I think some of that might have depended on how recently. Was it ten years ago? Was it two years ago? If they were in the supervisory chain that this happened, that could raise other -- other issues. So, if to the extent -- so, for example, || disclosed to me a potential conflict -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- to the extent that these arise, if there is a potential conflict, I'd like to know. I was aware of fi | iy conflict. I said, keep going. Q And in fact, | | |G you're talking about the Herman -- A Yes. Q “- connection, the prior -- A Yes. Q -- short lived law firm connection. Are you aware that Him in fact vetted that through | M. your ethics person? A I am -- I don't recall that independently, but I recall knowing about it. He may have told me he vetted it EFTA00009356

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 129 through MM. MMMM is highly respected in the office, and -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- that would be the appropriate -- Q So, are you also aware that BH | raised, again with MS MMB, the potential, again, appearance of a conflict of interest, or appearance of impropriety, because of his supervision of the Epstein case, and his concurrent close friendship with Mike Tein, who was an attorney who was representing Epstein, as well as Guy Lewis, former U.S. Attorney? A So, I was not aware of that. Q You were not aware of it, but -- but I guess what I'm -- what I'm noting is that both naa and | perceived appearance issues, and went through the process that's provided for them to get the blessing to go ahead and proceed with the case by the -- the blessing by the ethics expert -- A Right. Q -- but || HII apparently did not in this case vis a vis Lilly Ann Sanchez. A Yeah. Q Does that surprise you, or disappoint you, or perplex you, or do you care? A I would want to know more. EFTA00009357

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 130 Right. A But certainly it would provide -- I would want to know more before saying I'm disappointed, but again, was it ten years ago? Was it two years ago? What's the continuing -- there are a lot of facts, but certainly it -- that's the kind of -- it's the kind of discussion one would typically have with J. Q And in this case, what we're talking about is an informal conversation, or informal discussion, to use MM) «own term, with Sanchez as opposed to any of the other attorneys in Epstein's team about a particular resolution that we're going to spend all afternoon talking about, because it has some problematic aspects. Okay? So, you see why we're -- A I get it. No, I get it. Q Okay. BY MR. 9g: Q So, before we break, I'm -- should he have talked about this potential resolution with the line assistant before actually making it? A In a typical case, yes. So, ina typical case, I fostered communication. I would -- I would come -- I'd get involved in cases, but we'd want to know what the line assistant thinks, and they can agree or disagree, but we'd want -- we'd want input. EFTA00009358

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 131 Ys. a: Q What do you make of this really acid tone between GERM anc BR? Between GMMB anc BM in this Exhibit 3 exchange? I mean, QM is really -- as I read it, it's pretty strong. A I -- I can't -- I -- I'm not sure what to make of Q All right. All right. There are a couple of -- let's -- could we go off the record for a split second? (Off the record.) BY MS. xg: Q Okay, back on the record. Going back to Exhibit No. 3, there are a few things here that we think are important to raise with you, albeit you not having seen this at the time. WM) «NS sys that the -- she complains about this soft -- that's my term -- plea offer that Hill extended to Epstein through Lilly Ann Sanchez. She says that such an offer is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE, the victims, and me, meaning 9 HRM. Diic’ you have an understanding of what the FBI's position about prosecuting this case was? A My recollection of interaction with the FBI is with WM MN sas the SAC, and as I recall, he supported the eventual direction of this case. EFTA00009359

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 132 Q Is he the individual who you identify I believe in actually your -- your attorney's written response as the SAC who called you to congratulate you about the -- A He is. Q -- the case? About the result? A Yes. Q And was SAC QJ -- in that same written response from your attorney, there's a mention that he was present at many meetings on this case? A He was present at, at least some, and in part that was at my request, because this was a high enough profile case that I wanted to bring him into this. Q So, the -- we know he was present at the December 14, 2007 meeting, right? A Yeah. Q With Ken Starr and company. He is not present at -- to -- according to our investigation, at any other case with defense counsel. Others are. His ASAC, (NS is present. A So, recollections aren't nearly as good as documents. I don't recall the December meeting. I would have said that he was present at the September meeting, but it may be that I am, because this was so long ago, mixing the two. EFTA00009360

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 133 A Because I thought he would have come to the September meeting. Q No, according to all the information we have, just so you know -- A Right. Q ~~ MBS sas there as ASAC, but not -- actually, I'm not sure she was at the -- at any rate, she was -- she was -- A Right. Q -- he was present, Hi was present at the December meeting only. A Right. Q So, just so -- A Fair. Q Okay. Would he have been present at meetings other than with defense counsel meetings about this case? A Typically no. Typically, he and I would have talked on the phone or had discussion, and I know that he was aware of the matter. Q So -- A I recall his being aware of the matter, and generally positive as to the direction that we were going. Q By the direction or the eventual outcome? A The eventual outcome. Q All right. So, what about the Prosecution? Do you EFTA00009361

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 134 know what the FBI's view was about the prosecution? A I can't speak to the timeline. I would have -- and I'm contradicting the documents here, but I would have -- if you had asked me, said that he was present at the September meeting, and was aware of the terms that were presented at the September meeting. Clearly, I'm -- Q Right. A -- my recollection is incorrect, and I take that for what it is. Q Just to finish on -- with this point though, my question was an understanding of the FBI's position of the case, not the ultimate disposition. In other words, as of -- as of the date of Exhibit 3, there was no deal on the table. So, the question is, what was the FBI's view about the case? A So -- so, I -- I'm not trying to be difficult. At some point, when you say view, the FBI, to my recollection, thought that what Mr. Epstein did was sordid and disgusting and that we should proceed. How we proceeded, I don't recall having -- hearing specific views as to the how as opposed to the, we should. Q All right. Let's -- thank you. Let's take a break, 45 minutes. Thank you. (Off the record.) BY MS. Rg: All right. We're going to go back on the record. EFTA00009362

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 135 We're beginning after the break at 1:30 in the afternoon. Thank you. A Before get started -- Q Yes. A ~~ you referenced an e-mail from JJ that wasn't part of the packet. Q Correct. A Is that something that I could see and review, or is there discomfort on that? Q Yes. No, I am not -- as long as we make it on the record. Do you -- do you need to do it now, or can we do it during the next break? A It depends how long -- how long is it? It would just take -- One page. -- a minute, if you don't mind. Do you want to go off the record while Mr. (Off the record.) ys. a: Q All right. On the record again. For the record, Mr. Acosta has just reviewed and e-mail fromiyyyy SS ¢o . e.=: 2 ee dated July 18, 2007 at 2:07 p.m. It's one that I described to Mr. Acosta a moment -- this morning. Do you have any EFTA00009363

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 136 A I don't. Q All right. Before we broke, we were -- I mentioned your statement about SAC iE having attended many meetings. That to be clear was a representation you made in your March 2007 letter to the Daily Beast, not the written response. Looking briefly at -- back at Exhibit 3 and HEE ~~ you don't have to read it yourself. id EE representation that in her view the plea offer was completely unacceptable to the victims. Do you -- do you believe that she was correct in her view that the victims’ views should have been solicited before a plea offer was made? A So, I would have to think that was one through. There were concerns -- and I don't know about the timeline about communications with the victims. They're sort of laid out in the | affidavit. So, whether or not victims’ views were elicited is something I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time. Q But do you believe as a matter of sort of principle that the views of victims should be elicited before a plea offer -- A EFTA00009364

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 137 -- is made? So, aS a general matter, yes. Q Okay. A I think that the -- the reason I'm pushing back is because you're saying plea offer, and the CVRA does talk to plea offers as opposed to a situation where deferring Prosecution in favor of a state is a very different thing than a plea offer, and at the time, that was not a, it must. That was a depending on the facts and circumstances, that's a judgment call. At least that's how the department, to my understanding, viewed it. Q And was it also your view that it would have, as a general matter, it's a better practice or better approach to talk to the victims before? A As a general practice, yes. Q All right. Do you think that would have been particularly important in this case where the proposal involved sending the case back to the state, which the victims were aware had already mishandled the case to begin with? A So, a few -- there are -- there are a few things in that question that I think are packed. Whether the victims were aware and were of the view, from my perspective and my recollection, were of the view that the state had mishandled the case, I can't speak to. | | EFTA00009365

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 138 Some of the victims were, to my recollection, exonerating him. There was concern that some of the victims were more on his side than on the prosecution's side. And so, that judgement call of which victims are notified and how much I think is something that really is a judgement call that needs to be done almost on a case by case basis by individuals that are aware of sort of the facts and circumstances surrounding each victim. In the general -- in a general case, you want to have fulsome communication. I can understand in cases where victims might be giving exonerating information, where -- or, there is restitution at stake, that could be different. Q And by the people involved, are you talking at the -- at the trial team level? A At the trial team level with whatever appropriate supervisors -- Q Mm-hmm . A -- are engaged in the victim notification issues. Q And in this case, that would not include you, is that correct? A That -- I don't recall cases where I got -- where I became part of the victim notification judgements. BY ms. Eg: Q Did you ever issue an instruction to the trial team that they should not consult with the victims before the NPA EFTA00009366

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 139 was signed? A So, not that I recall. I know that there's some instances where after the NPA was signed, I said, you know, I'm directing that we withhold notification for five days, or X period of time to work this out. But before the NPA was signed, I don't recall -- in all candor, I don't recall discussions about victim notification until after the NPA was signed. I don't know if there's e-mail traffic before the NPA was signed, but I don't recall victim notification issues until after the NPA was signed. Q Okay. BY MR. SR: Q And I just -- one more question on this topic is that prior to -- we interviewed other people, obviously, in this -- A Mm-hmm. Q -- case, and we interviewed Ms. QB, and one of the things that she told us, she has a recall of a -- ofa meeting with you present, Mr. BBB, and mr. 9B, where this issue of victim notification was discussed in the timeframe of prior to the FBI, and at that meeting, she was specifically instructed that we are not going to talk about it with the victims. Do you recall that meeting? A I don't -- I don't recall. If that's her EFTA00009367

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 140 recollection, that's her recollection. I don't -- I don't recall that. I -- I recall knowing that there were issues around victim notification. I recall, particularly after the NPA was signed, I recall efforts, I believe, to notify as it was being signed -- to notify the victims of the upcoming state plea. Q Mm-hmm. A And I recall discussions -- if not discussions -- let me not say discussions -- a general concern about the victim notification, what does that do? Because the victim 11 is also a witness, and a -- 12 Q Mm-hmm . 13 A -- potential witness, and in some cases and adverse 14 witness. And so, how does all that balance out? 15 Okay. Well, we're going to drill down into 16 17 Right. 18 -- post-NPA issues later on. 19 Right. 20 Just now, focusing on -- 21 Right. 22 Q -- pre-NPA, before it's signed, when the 23 negotiations are going back and forth. 24 A Right. 25 Q You have memory of this topic coming up? EFTA00009368

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 141 A I don't recall discussing the victim notification issues. Q Okay, and what would your response be though to -- are you ~~ are you aware of the CVRA litigation that went on? A Yes. Q From Judge Marra? A Yes. Q So, one of the issues that comes up in Judge Marra's decision is, he made a finding that the government violated the CVRA because they didn't inform -- consult with the victims -- A Right. Q -- prior to signing the NPA, and there is a perception, or he -- from his opinion that the government did this -- failed to communicate that in order to eventually keep the victims in the dark and protect the resolution. Why is that an incorrect assumption? A And so -- so, I would say that J sets out her reasoning in her affidavit. She talks about -- BY MS. x: Q Are you referring to the -- her 2017 affidavit? A Her 2017 affidavit. She talks about -- I believe she notified at least some victims, and it became an issue, and there's concern -- you know, you have this NPA. Whether -- whether or not that NPA will ultimately remain is EFTA00009369

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 142 a very open question, because from our office's expectations, we expected him to plead shortly after that, and he did not. And so, are we going to trial or are we not is a very open question, and I think there is -- has to be discretion, where there is no legal requirement. There has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when. BY MR. a - Q Okay, just -- just one other point, and this is that -- we've reviewed -- A Yeah. Q -- Ms. BM declaration, and the notifications that she's referring to there, those discussions take place after the signing of the NPA. So, we're just talking about here still -- A Right. Q -- just the pre-NPA -- Yeah. “~~ pre-signing of that. So, does that change your all? Again, I don't -- I don't recall the victim notification being issued before the NPA. I recall a lot of discussions afterwards. I don't recall. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. That just means I don't recall them. Q Was there any concern with you or among any of the EFTA00009370

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 143 other people involved in this negotiation phase that if the victims were to find out that we are negotiating this NPA that it will blow up the NPA, that it will cause us trouble in some way? A Our -- my focus before the NPA was signed was, here are -- here are these terms. You know, and then for the team, go negotiate this. And so, from my perspective, it was much more of a, what are the terms, than the victim notification issues around that. BY MS. i: Q Right, but just to follow up -- A Right. Q -- did you hear any discussion amongst the people that you were dealing with -- A oIe-- Q ~- that they were afraid that the victims might raise such objections, or go to the press that this whole thing would be -- you know, come to a -- come to a halt? A So, I tried to think -- I don't recall -- I believe we notified the victims in advance of the state hearing so that they would be aware. We didn't notify them before we signed the NPA to my recollection, but we certainly notified them of the state hearing. And so, I was aware generally of what was being done, but the NPA and what we -- you know, the NPA was the focus, not the victim notification -- EFTA00009371

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 144 MS. a: When -- THE WITNESS: -- part of that. MS. Ee : -- when you talk about -- go ahead. MR. as : We -- we're going to get into the THE WITNESS: Right. MR. a : ~- and what we're -- MS. Es : All right. THE WITNESS: Right. MR. as : -- a little bit later THE WITNESS: Right. ve. I Just one -- can I just direct you to -- Yeah. -- document number 15? MS. a : Exhibit 15? THE WITNESS: Yeah. ee a Q Okay. So, do you -- that was an e-mail that is from Ms. Piet tty to |G then forwarded to you? A Yeah. Q Do you see the reference in there where she mentions that she spoke to Hl iti tit ig or ia Hin reminded her -- where is it? ° i] | i fiig It's in the second paragraph -- | EFTA00009372

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

THE WITNESS: Yeah, no, I -- MS. MMM; -- in the middle. THE WITNESS: I see it. MR. MMMM: Ss The middle -- THE WITNESS: It's highlighted. BY MR. a: Q Could you just read that? The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [MMMM politely reminded me, is required under the law. Do you -- do you -- do you recall that e-mail? A I -- again, I don't recall this specific e-mail. My recollection is a view that there is no requirement to notify, because it's not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state prosecution. And therefore, it becomes a discretionary issue, and what notification is appropriate is really a function of how you interact with -- with victims who are also potential witnesses, and I was aware -- I support what the office did. I'm not backing away from it. I'm just saying I can't, 12 years later, reconstruct what the thought process was other than there was no legal obligation. It was a discretionary issue, and this is how the discretion was exercised. Q But did -- do you remember -- so, there's two things. Any -- do you remember any discussions coming up EFTA00009373

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 146 about the topic of what we have to do as far as notification in the pre-NPA negotiations? A I -- again, I really don't. I know there was a lot of discussion after the NPA. I don't recall pre-NPA discussions on this. Q Last question on this. A Sure. MS. ERM: 8y hin. THE WITNESS: Yeah. BY MR. xy: Q You're getting at least forwarded to you an e-mail from the trial attorney in the case showing that she is concerned about the notification issue, and she's raising at least the -- referencing the head of -- A Right. Q ~- CEOS about this issue. Did this ring any bells to you? Raise any -- A So, from this, I would infer that a discussion was had as to what the obligations had -- were, and whether we had to or not, because -- so, I think it's fair to infer she is, you know, e-mailing my first assistant. I don't know what the attachment here -- oh, the attachment here is the term sheet, so to speak, and my first assistant is forwarding it to me in large part so that I get the attachment, and I think from here, it's fair to infer EFTA00009374

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 147 that -- that some conversation or discussion was had. I don't remember the conversation or discussion. My focus was on the terms. I'm willing to accept that the conversation was had. My recollection of the obligations under the CVRA is that they did not attach, because this was not an indictment, it was not a plea, and that it was entirely discretionary how we proceeded, and therefore how you proceed is a function of, should you notify victims? Yes, but there are concerns because they're also witnesses. There are concerns because we are going out of our way to provide for restitution, and all of that played into a complex calculus. Q That was it. BY MS. a: Q So, you said that there was a view that there's no requirement to notify the victims. Who was that view coming from? A I can't -- I can't speak to person A, B, or C. I can say that if -- if the office thought there was a legal obligation, there are too many professionals involved in this that if they thought there was a legal obligation to notify, they would have done so. At some point in this process, whether it was pre or post, I know that there was some explicit consideration of EFTA00009375

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 148 what are the obligations, and some discussion of, this is not the obligations don't attach until indictment, and therefore, this is a discretionary matter. Whether that happened in September or in August or October, I can't speak to. But I know that that was -- that was talked about, and I think later on in the record, there's an e-mail from our appellate chief in a different case that highlights, well, there is this Texas case that just ruled the other way. So, clearly, it's an issue that had been talked about, and I recall it being talked about. I just can't tell you the when, or the with who. Q And would there have been any -~- you've spoken on one concern -- Right. “=~ concerning impeachment of the victims regarding Yeah. -- financial aspect of the NPA. Would there have been any downside to consulting with the victims concerning, | hey, the U.S. Attorney's Office is considering a resolution short of a plea that involves charges in state court. How do you feel about that, victims? A So, there may not have been a downside. It's difficult to recreate. My understanding, going back 12 years, was that the victims would be aware of what was EFTA00009376

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 149 happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing. Q And where does that -- where does this come from? A So, my understanding is that when he was going to go into state court that they would have been notified that that was an all-encompassing plea, that that state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding. Q But again, in terms of -- A Before -- your point is before it was signed. Q Correct, so that they could have input -- A Right. Q -- into trying, perhaps, if they wanted to, to persuade you that that -- A Right. Q “~~ was not a good idea. A It may have -- it may have been a -- look, looking back on it, it may have been a very good idea. I can't speak to what the thought process was then, other than it was discretionary and it was not legally required. Q But at least as we sit here teday, you cannot recall a particular problem that somebody brought up to you and said, we should not consult because of this problem? A I don't recall that, and clearly, given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had. EFTA00009377

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

A Q Page 150 | BY MS. amy: In the last 15 or -- Right. -- 20 minutes, you've several times referred to discussions and we. A Q Right. I want to make it clear that so far, the people who were involved in this case, the Epstein case in your shop were you, I, HENNE, GEMEEE, ana a. If -- is there anyone else who was involved in those discussions other than those five? A A Q Not to my recollection at this phase. Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure -- Yes. -- we understand who you -- Yeah. -- who is encompassed -- Right. -- in that general discussion -- Right. -- of -- of the matter. Okay. So, on July 26, we're now a month after that -- that presentation by the defense counsel to the team, including HEI and | | | § A Q Correct. There was a meeting in Miami, and it was, again, EFTA00009378

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 151 anong MS. GEES, GME HEME by telephone, MMBMMBMME, as well as the two case agents -- A Mm-hmm. 0 ME ES 2: «ic you know them, by the way? A I did not, not to my recollection. Q Okay, and also their supervisor, Ft | f | og Did you know NS BE? A Somewhat. Q All right, and they were all in West Palm, of course. A Yeah. And then ASAC | |; ilk Yeah. Do you recall her? A Somewhat. Q All right. They arrived -- or, at least, the trial team -- the investigative team arrived ostensibly to discuss the case. It turned out to be a very brief meeting essentially consisting of || | | iy coming in, announcing that you had decided on a two year state resolution, and then essentially leaving without -- that is, | | Bi left the meeting without discussion. This was -- this has been described to us as stunning to the investigative team. They had no idea this EFTA00009379

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 152 was coming. This was -- they were completely blindsided. The question is, were you aware that , fF was going to announce that you had decided on this resolution? A So, I don't recall that, but I had decided and endorsed this resolution at some point. And so, the fact that I don't recall doesn't mean that -- I wasn't at the meeting, I don't recall. But I clearly had endorsed this resolution, and so -- Q Mm-hmm . A -- his announcement would have been consistent with my decision. Q And again, that decision was reached without consultation and discussion with -- and input from the line AUSA. Does that trouble you? A Sitting here today, I wouldn't have said that there was no input from the AUSA. So, to the extent that she felt there was no consultation or input, that would. From my perspective, trying to recreate things from 12 years ago, there had been discussions and consultations, and she had spoken with Im and il and -- and it would have been my guess that views were known and articulated, and there was good communication back and forth. Q But again, that's your expectation of your people, is that correct? A Correct. EFTA00009380

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 153 Q Okay. So -- and also, from our interviews, it -- there's -- our -- it's our understanding that you popped your head into that meeting and said hello to the folks -- A Okay. Q -- gathered. Do you have any -- Again, I -- -- recollection of that? -- I don't remember the meeting. All right. I may have -- I may have done that. And it's not -- Right. -- completely uncharacteristic of you? Right. Okay. It's not. All right. No, because that was an internal meeting. That Right, or -- correct, as opposed to the -- Right. Q -- scenario we were discussing this morning. All right, this deal, and we're not talking about -- A Right. Q -- the term sheet yet, two major prongs we want to EFTA00009381

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 154 talk about. One -- the first one is forgoing federal prosecution, right? Going for a state only disposition, and I talked to you this morning about the five -- sort of the five ways a case could proceed when it comes from the state. You can either decline it and give it back to the state. You can go ahead and indict, but the guy -- let the defendant or defendants go to trial, or plead to the indictment. You can indict, negotiate a deal, although you talked about some of the issues there, and you can also file a complaint and negotiate pre-indictment, or negotiate something. A Right. Q So, why was it that all of those other options were rejected, and the state only deal was settled on? A So, let me -- let me back up a minute, because I think it was a little more -- a little more fluid. The way the matter came to the office was, the state wasn't doing enough. It didn't provide for prison time. It didn't provide for registration, and then you had the restitution issue. There were legal issues, which I'm sure we'll talk about. There were witness issues. And -- and we could go to trial, potentially, and we may or may not prevail. Alternatively, we could look at a pre-indictment resolution, and at various points, the office went back and forth between a federal pre-indictment resolution, and a EFTA00009382

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 155 state pre-indictment resolution. I think you showed me an exhibit where i said a 371 with the rule 11. There was some discussion of other statutes at some point. I don't recall the timeline. And so ultimately, the focus was as an initial matter, what -- how do we get this to resolution with some flexibility for state versus federal? I think -- not I think. I -- you know, there was a preference for deferring to the state. Q Where does that come from? What -- A In part because the legal issues are to some extent also present in a federal resolution, because that then becomes a precedent for other similarly situated cases. Q Did you want to avoid a precedent? A So, should we talk about the legal issues? Because we -~ we say we keep coming back to the legal issues, but -- Q All right. Talk about the legal issues. A So -- so, when I was at civil rights, one of the areas of responsibility that I had was trafficking. I was very Supportive. We set up some of the first human trafficking task forces. I thought civil rights really became aggressive. I think || Hil” was one of the point people. We brought in Fe to be a point person on human trafficking. One of the background issues that -- that EFTA00009383

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page informed the time and all those prosecutions and also the development of the trafficking law was, what is the distinction between trafficking and solicitation, and how -- and what is the distinction between a truly federal case and a local case? Because there was a lot of concern at the time about federalizing something that is traditionally local. Now, that was 12 years ago, and I think that those concerns are no longer in play today nearly -- and certainly not to the extent that they were 12 years ago. Q This was the state of play at the time you were the AAG for -- A At the AAG and afterwards as I was U.S. Attorney to some extent, there was a lot of discussions about federalizing state issues generally, and certainly in the legislative issues that went back and forth, that was -- that was a consideration. Q Wasn't that trend very swift as of -- was it '06 when the Adam Walsh Act was enacted? A So -- so, sure. I think we're trending in a certain direction. Q All right. A And I think that trend has continued and accelerated, but these were very -- these were valid, in my opinion, considerations at the time, and one question to be EFTA00009384

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 157 considered is, how would a court look at this -- because different judges may look at these statutes differently. And how would a court consider federal nexus issues? And so, that was, to my mind, an important consideration, because this was at the time to some extent uncharted territory, and while we might prevail, and probably would prevail, we may not have, and how is that weighed against a certain plea with registration that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender? Q Okay, a couple of things. One, did you engage in that -- that discussion, based on your experience, with J MMMM? Dil -- did you -- did you engage in that kind of conversation? A I don't recall who I may have talked to, but this was -- when -- when -- you will see in the record reference to legal issues. This -- these were the legal issues, at least to my mind, that that's referring to. Q But did you sit -- I mean, not to be silly about it, but -- Right. ~~ did you sit in your office and ponder them, or in the context of -- We would have -- we would have discussed them. All right, we, being you, and -- I and -- whether it's J or MB or Br EFTA00009385

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 158 wouldn't have sat and pondered them on my own, but we would have had some level of discussion about these. Q So, conversely, is it your understanding that -- that those three guys understood from you at least your perspective on these legal issues? A I -- let me -- let me push back. Those -- those three professionals, because they are -- Q Oh -- A Yeah. I'm sorry. Well, in this context, it's -- Q Colleagues, yes. A Yeah. Yeah. So, there were two large buckets of issues. One was the witness issues, and on those, I would have deferred more to folks that are experienced trial Prosecutors. The other one are these legal issues. Q Mm-hmm . A And you see it with the fed -- with the reference at the very beginning to the federal nexus -- Q Mm-hmm . A -- and you see it throughout where -- these were discussions that we had, and from the very beginning, what is the federal nexus, and how do we make it clear that we are not stepping on something that is a purely local matter, because we don't want bad precedent for the sake of the EFTA00009386

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 159 larger human trafficking issue. Q Did you have those conversations with your three subordinate colleagues in this case? A I would have had those conversations with those colleagues. Whether it was with all three, or with two, I can't recall, but I would have had those conversations. Q And do you recall whether anyone -- anyone among them pushed back as, for example, Hi Hi indicated his view of some of those issues? A So -- so, I don't recall specific pushback. I can -- I can say where we concluded, which is there -- we are comfortable enough with the law to believe that we are -- that if we need to go to court, we can do so ethically, and we have a good chance of winning. Because if we could not go forward -- Q Of course. A Then -- then we just can't go forward, right? No matter what outcome you want. Was it a slam dunk? Was there some legal risk? Yes, there was some legal risk. Q Mr. Acosta, you use the term a roll of the dice in A Yes. Q In -- there's a different -- I mean, at one end, you have a slam dunk. I would submit that no criminal prosecution -- your press conference. | EFTA00009387

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 160 Right. -- is a slam dunk. Correct. Q Likewise, I would ask you to comment on whether any prosecution is really a roll of the dice, given that a prosecuting authority, in this case, the U.S. Attorney's Office, will have always done investigation, persuaded at least a majority of grand jurors to -- that they -- that there is sufficient proof to bring an indictment -- A Right. Q -- and so on. Do you -- do you -- would you still hang your hat on a roll of the dice hook? A So, I don't know if I would use that exact phrase. Q All right. A But let me -- let me just say, because you -- prodding grand jurors. From our perspective, sitting in the office in 2006 and 2007, this is a case that someone comes to you and says, this has been presented, we have no reason to believe the state attorney acted -- we're not happy with what they did, but we have no reason to believe that there was funny business. Q Misconduct? A Misconduct. All right. And let's assume that there is no misconduct, EFTA00009388

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 161 because you don't want to assume that again still. So, the state attorney took this, reviewed it, presented it to a grand jury, and the grand jury came out with this kind of recommendation. That at least is indicative of some -- some other authority looking at this and making a judgement as to what it looks like. Q Are you aware that at least at the investigative and line assistant level, there was -- they had understanding and reason to believe that the state prosecutors had put in witnesses into their grand jury and set about impeaching them? I'm not -- A Right. Q -- suggesting that this is misconduct, but it's a way of approaching evidence before a grand jury, and if they did that, it would be perhaps charitably for the purpose of making it abundantly clear to the grand jurors how the witness would fair -- A Right. Q -- or not fair under aggressive cross-examination at a trial and so on. A Right. So, were you aware of that at the time? I was not. You were not. Right. EFTA00009389

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 162 Q You were not aware that that was an actual concern and understanding -- A That -- that there was -- Q -- by your team? That there was a concern that they basically -- Tanked the case. Tanked. Yes. So, there was -- I -- You -- I just -- -- I-- Q You didn't know that? A I was aware of a concern about how the state attorney -- how aggressive they were. Q Right. A There's a -- there's a distance between how aggressive they were versus tanking a case. Right, but I am telling you the concern by your the ground level -- Right. -- was the latter. Understood. Okay. Aware of lack of aggression, tanking the case, very specifically, I mean, there might have been, hey, you know, EFTA00009390

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 163 is there -- this looks really odd, but you've given a level of granularity as to highly unusual conduct. So, my point, there is at least a perspective coming out of the state. There are legal concerns. We believed -- at the end of the day, I thought we would prevail, but they're valid, and then you overlay that with witness concerns, and concerns as to how juries, which were different in 2006 on these issues. Q What do you base that on, by the way? A It's -- Q Because you're not a trial attorney anymore. A So, experience with how juries in South Florida looked at these matters, and with how South Florida looked at the project Safe Neighborhood -- I'm sorry, -- Q It's childhood. A Project Safe Childhood run initiative generally, and so there had been -- there had been prior instances where we had talked about this, and we had gotten some pushback. Q From -- A From within the office, from within the FBI. On what? On -- on sort of sex cases more generally. And pushback in what regard? Where should we put our resources? And so, there | | | was -- there was just a general -- just general pushback. EFTA00009391

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page Q Okay, but there are a couple things there. One the juries -- the juries -- the petite juries, and -- which -- A Right. Q -- you -~- I'd still like the answer on. A Yeah. Q And then the other is the FBI being loath to muck around with these cases that they were not -- A Yeah. Q “= yet -- So -- -- engaged with. So, let's -- let's take them one at a time, you know, and -- and in all candor, I think we're looking at this through a 2019 lens. You know, at the time, and I've said this in different forms, but you know, Weinstein was known and about, and actions weren't taken, and Bill Cosby was known about. And they're each -- go with me. They're each different -- Q All right. A -- but I do think the public looked at these cases differently in 2006, and there are at least some individuals -- I'm not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least some individuals who would have looked and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking case. EFTA00009392

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 165 Q All right. Who in your office -- who in the U.S. Attorney's Office ever said that? A So, this was -- this came up in the context of, how would the victims do in court? And it wasn't just, you know, how will they be impeached, but how will jurors look at the fact patterns around this generally? Q And who was -- who was talking -- A I can't -- Q -- about that? A I can't say. I know that it was discussed. I can't say A, B, C, or D. I -- Q Well, it wouldn't have been D, because it would -- D would be MM] MMMM, and r think you would agree with me that she would not -- A I would agree -- Q -- concede that. A I would agree with you. Q All right. A With that, but my point is that when we're talking -- so, when you're looking at victims in court today, I think it's fair to say that the Way we approach -- there's been -- you know, there's been a lot of changes in victim shaming, and the degree to which all of that is permitted. The degree to which I think the public understands that -- that girls, minor females, may be scared and may EFTA00009393

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 166 testify differently. And I'm suggesting that it's important to sort of think back to 2006 and understand that these issues may have been viewed differently. Q You -- you're -- you have not -- since leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office -- been engaged in the investigation and prosecution or handling in any respect of child sex crimes, is that correct? A That is correct. Q So, on what do you base this -- is it -- is it a -- your cultural observation? Your perspective on the evolution of popular culture, not in a derogatory way, that leads you to that assessment? A So, on a few -- certainly the law has changed, and the law has become much more aggressive. So, for example, I believe the law on proof of age has changed where proof of age is no longer required. Q The law has, but the case law even at this time was already -- A What was -- Q -- reasonably clear on that. A Was reasonably clear, and certainly moving in that direction. Q Correct. Wouldn't you have wanted to be at the forefront of this? So, I believe I was at the forefront of trafficking EFTA00009394

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 167 issues, and I think if you were to look at my civil rights record, I really was at the forefront of trafficking issues. Q Even the U.S. Attorney's Office had a very robust, as we discern it now, a very robust initiative. It maybe wasn't a formal initiative, but commitment to prosecute these cases. A Correct, and -- and I fully supported that. All the more reason why, if there is an issue, and there is a potential for some judge, rightly or wrongly, whether I agree or not -- because you can't always predict -- even though you think you'll prevail, you can't always predict where holdings go. To -- Q Are you talking about on appeal? A On appeal or in trial to -- Q Right. A -- to issue a negative precedent on travel for purpose of, or on federal nexus, and if you think back at the time, on appear, there were -- there's a lot of case law on commerce clause and federal nexus. Q Right. A And so, I think that that is an important and valid factor that goes into the decision making that assesses the risk of trial, not just from the -- this -- you know, how the victims will testify in this particular case, but also what this means to the greater -- to the greater effort. EFTA00009395

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 168 Q I understand that completely. What I -- what I am not hearing is where a voice other than you and your team in this case was being heard, like 9 HR. ic -- did you -- A And -- Q -- talk to him about these issues? Because -- Not -- -- CEOS -- Not to -- -- was at the forefront of -- Not to my recollection. All right. Wouldn't -- MR. TODD: Let (MM finish her questions. THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry. Sorry. MS. QM: 9 We're all -- THE WITNESS: I apologize. MS. [MJ: «We're on a mutual role here. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MS. RE: Q But wouldn't -- if you'd had those concerns, perfectly well founded, why not reach out and engage with CEOS and see what their assessment was about the vulnerability that this case might expose your office to? A So, I can't reconstruct that 12 years later. You know, one interesting question is would CEOS have come to EFTA00009396

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 169 mind versus civil rights crim, because coming from civil rights crim, I -- you know, my primary trafficking contacts would have been -- Q Did you pick up the phone and -- A Not -- Q -- call them? A Not to my recollection. Q So, I guess what I'm -- what I'm getting at is you, based on substantial experience and a commitment to these cases in your office -- the U.S. Attorney's Office -- had formed your own analytical analysis -- your own analysis legally. You've told us you've discussed this or made those issues and concerns known to the people who were below you, at least immediately below you, and that it -- that's where it sort of rested. There was not an effort to go out and enhance or add to your understanding of the case, and legal issues. A So, to my recollection, I don't recall, and it's -- we'll get into perhaps -- you know, I -- from my impression, I actually thought I was being more aggressive than main justice would feel comfortable with, and -- Q More aggressive in what respect? A In my interpretation and how comfortable I was going forward than main justice, and we can get into that, EFTA00009397

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 170 but I thought I was being more aggressive, not less, and so I had these concerns. I did not vet them at main justice. Q Okay. When you said more -- more aggressive, are you talking about the fact that you crafted this state disposition, or that you were more forward leaning on the potential of prosecuting Epstein federally? A More forward leaning. Q And yet you didn't. You didn't -- you didn't lean sufficiently far forward to actually pull the trigger and have an indictment returned. A So, I would push back on that, and that from my perspective, we were leaning forward, because we did Prosecute him by deferring to the state, and ensuring that at the state -- All right. -- he had a sentence that he -- where he went to Q All right. Okay. I want to sort of move on. I want to ask you a question about 11C1C, please, that you mentioned earlier. A Okay. Q And sort of alluded to here, when we -- A Right. Q -- talked about judges, and we talked about dismissing charges from an indictment. Was your -- what was EFTA00009398

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 171 your position as U.S. Attorney with regard to the binding pleas in an 11C1C plea agreement? A We used them very rarely. Q But why? A As a typical matter, judges did not like them. Q And -- and was that something that as U.S. Attorney, you engaged with the judges on, or was that simply a matter of seeing what they did with them? A It -- it happened before I got there. I suspect it continued to happen after I left. Q All right. Okay. That said, were there some eccasions in which the office, if you recall at all, did do licic -- A There -- -- plea agreements? -- may have been. I don't recall. Okay. All right. MR. MB: And QB, before we move onto -- MS. QM: 9s ves. MR. MMM: -- another issue, can I -- MS. QM: veah. ='m -- MR. MMM: -- go back a second -- MS. MM: -- still with federal -- I'm still on the federal prosecution, but go ahead. EFTA00009399

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 172 Q We had talked about the -- you talked about the state grand jury, and how their decision informed your decision, and you said, well, what state grand jury did with this. What was your understanding of what this was? Like, what exactly the state grand jury looked at? A So, so, let me back up. I said it was a factor that informed, not just -- Q I understand. A -- determined. So, my understanding is that at least some core amount of facts were presented, and I understand that since it was at the state, the FBI may have found additional witnesses, but when it was presented, the very reason the office took it in the first place was because it was presented to the state, and it went to a grand jury, and the recommendation from the grand jury was for a -- you know, a statute that would not require jail time, and that seemed wrong. But the very fact that it was presented to a grand jury certainly was one of several factors that we considered, because it at least indicated some level of how individual jurors may view this. Q Do you have any recollection that the state grand jury presented a single witness, who, as JM talked about earlier, that they impeached? A I have -- I have read that it was a single witness. EFTA00009400

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 173 Since then, I don't have an independent recollection of that. Q Okay. BY MS. ae : Q And were you -- how familiar were you with Florida state criminal procedure? A It depends what -- what area. Q Well, you never practiced there, right? Correct. I forget what law school you went to. A Not Florida. Q Not in Florida, and you were not a member of the Florida bar. A Correct. Q Correct. So, really any knowledge you had would have sort of been picked up? A I should -- I should point out that a number of AUSAs in Florida are not a member of the Florida bar, so that's not unusual. Q Oh, okay. No -- I'm not -- I'm not -- A Right. -- suggesting -- Right. -- otherwise. And in federal employment, you can move from -- Right. EFTA00009401

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 174 A Yeah. So, I had been U.S. Attorney for quite a while, and then I -- you know, I think we would have been interacting with the state system sufficiently, and if there was something that I had questions on, I could certainly ask. Q Were you aware that in the Florida system, grand juries were not required to be used to bring federal criminal charges except in capital cases? A Yes. Q Okay, so even bringing a case to a grand jury was an -- in a non-capital context, was somewhat unusual? A An indication that there were some concerns or something, so the state attorney, presenting it in the best possible light, is looking to test the case. Q All right, and without getting into any substance, did you at any point become aware of the kind of reaction that the line AUSA, MM) MBM, was getting from the federal grand jurors to whom she was presenting? A I did not. Q All right. Another aspect of concern that I think you mentioned in your press conference was the concern about labelling or putting the girls -- the girls -- the victims in a position where they would be labelled as prostitutes, right? Do you recall -- A I'm not sure -- Q -- mentioning that? EFTA00009402

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 175 -- I phrased it that way, but I -- I take -- I take We'll defer to the record. Right. Q But -- but you did -- you did express concern, and our understanding is there was some expression of concern in the U.S. Attorney's Office among the folks about the victims having to self-identify, or -- A Right. Q -- admit that they were sort of prostitutes. The disposition that was reached in the state -- and that -- and that -- avoiding that was something to be desired -- A Yes. Q -- right? A Yes. Q The charge to which Epstein was ultimately require to plead guilty did just that. It was a solicitation to prostitution of minors. Was that -- did that factor in at all as a -- as a -- as an issue of -- that -- that was not being addressed at all -- A Right. Q -- by the state disposition? A So, I -- I was aware of and signed off on this j three point -- | Q The term sheet? | EFTA00009403

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 176 A -- it's in here somewhere -- term sheet. In terms of the negotiation over which state statute was used, and which victims, that is something that -- that -- to my understanding, was being handled by Ms. QE, and from my perspective, she would certainly have had sensitivity to that. Q And do you have any idea how that three -- those three counts or charges were reduced to simply one? A Ido not. That would be a function of the course of the negotiations. Q Why was -- why wasn't any reasoning for this disposition -- deferring to the state -- set forth in writing? Why didn't anyone do a memo explaining what your reasoning was, or what the office's reasoning was? A I can't speak to that directly, but I can say that it would have been unusual. I don't recall other cases where there was a, this is the reason for our disposition type memo. At least not memos that came to me. Q Okay. I'm showing you two, and the caption is -- is all that's relevant here, but there are two memos that are both dated February 2006, and March 2006. One of them is in fact addressed to you from 9) BBM, and it attaches a memo, which is a require for pretrial diversion to resolve case against an individual named Ronald Sasse, S-a-s-s-e. And it is a child pornography possession case in EFTA00009404

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 177 which the conclusion was that the defendant merely possessed it, and that it was a case that should be resolved by pretrial diversion, and I'm just enly bringing that to your attention -- A Right. Q ~~ as well as this second one that I'll show you, to show you that there are cases involving, you know, child sex crimes, where it's -- the office did see fit to set forth its analysis and reasoning for the proposed result. The second document, dated February 15, 2006, isa memo, not to you, but to [IMM] MEM in his capacity as chief of the criminal division, and it requests authorization to enter into a plea agreement with a five year cap, and it -- it is a ClC plea, and the handwritten notes indicate that the supervisors concurred in it. Again, I'm simply suggesting that there -- that there are at least some examples where the office, you know, in these kinds of cases -- A Right. Q -- did -- So -- -- put it to paper. So, I can only speculate. Mm-hmm. And questions I would have is, to what extent was this put on paper, because it was a case that | | or others EFTA00009405

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 178 were not involved with. So, this was the way that in this case, the chief of the -- you know, the economic crimes, or in this case, you know, ia is chief of the criminal division, we're communicating information rather than walking in and having a discussion. We're just communicating it on Paper as a way to obviate a discussion. In this Particular case, there were -- there was discussion, there was communication, and so a memo to sort of establish -- in other words, is this a required approval memo, or is this a memo that says, in lieu of getting together, where are the facts, let me know what you think. Q All right, and was there not a Practice, or even a requirement in the office that plea dispositions should be memorialized in writing in -- in -- with the rationale? A So, to the extent that a line attorney might be seeking permission from a supervisor -- Q Mm-hmm. A -- on a plea disposition, I would think that they would communicate that in writing as the cleanest, most typical way when you've got 20 or 30 line attorneys and one supervisor. That is not necessarily the only way, and certainly as U.S. Attorney, I don't recall a -- you know, a practice of memorializing to me what plea dispositions would be. EFTA00009406

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 179 Q Okay, and in this case, you were involved in the case, right? A And in this case, I was involved, and so to be clear, I'm not -- I -- I'm not saying that I disagreed with this, and I'm not walking away with it. And so, to the extent that I may have in a meeting said this looks good, that may have obviated a need to -- Q All right. A -- write that up. Q Okay. Thank you. Another aspect of the state resolution that raises concern -- and it -- and let me make clear that -- that many of our questions are framed in this way, but we are also reflecting a concern that's been expressed in the press, and in the public, and by others. A I understand. Understood. Q So -- A Understood. Q -- we're sort of coming through that lens. So, another aspect of the state resolution that raises concern is, doesn't it appear that the -- that by going -- sending this matter back to the state, there's more federal interference, more federal involvement in the state process than there would have been if you had just kept the case? A So in hindsight, one of the issues I think in this case is after the agreement, and you know, we keep calling it EFTA00009407

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 180 @ non-prosecution agreement, and I kept Saying call it an agreement to defer in favor of state prosecution. Q A DPA instead of an NPA? A Right. Q Why wasn't it called a DPA, by the way? A I don't know. There's one e-mail where I suggested putting in reference to petite policy. Q Right. A And WM MMMM seic, looks strange, take it out. There's another e-mail in the record where I keep saying -- everyone keeps calling it an NPA, call it a deferred to state. So, I can't -- you know, I can't say why not, but it's an important distinction. Q But if you had said -- it -- I don't want to go -- A Yeah. Q ~~ to far afield, but if you had said, uh-uh, call it, no, call it a deferred Prosecution -- A Right. Q “- agreement, they would have changed it, right? A They would have, and I -- I actually asked that we have a clause based -- I don't have the independent recollection of this, but based on the record that we include a clause saying that we were doing this in light of the petite policy to defer, and || iim pushes back and says, I haven't seen that, and he's the local expert, so I deferred EFTA00009408

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 181 to him. I take responsibility, but it's an important distinction. And so -- I'm sorry, I just lost track of your question. Q We were talking about, doesn't this involve more federal interference? A Could I -- could I grab a Red Bull from you that I bought? MR. HERRON: Yeah. THE WITNESS: Sorry, just a -- MS. a : Do you want to take a five minute break? THE WITNESS: Would you mind? MS. as : Not at all. THE WITNESS: Yeah. MS. Es: Call it, please, at any time. THE WITNESS: Let me grab the Red Bull. MS. | ti‘(tsi*@Sz Off the record. (Off the record.) BY MS. a : Q All right. Thank you. All right. Back on the record. So, Mr. Acosta, I was asking you about -- didn't this -- didn't this resolution end up injecting the feds into the state business in a pretty aggressive way? A And -- and so what I was saying is in hindsight, one of the -- one of the issues here is I think this would EFTA00009409

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 182 have gone very differently if after the agreement to defer in favor of state prosecution, all the victims knew about this, they had gone into state court, he had pled October -- whatever the date was -- had been sentenced, had served his sentence, and case over. And so, one -- you know, to the extent there are lessons learned, an attempt to provide a -- an attempt to backstop the state here, rebounded, because in the process, it got convoluted, and complex, and ended up being arguably more intrusive than it would have had this just been, here is what we'll do, go back to the -- if you go back to the state and work this out, but -- Q Would that have required or depended on cooperation from the state authorities? A So, I think I was clear, and my recollection is this was an issue where I said it is up to you, and one of the -- I edited a few parts of this. I got involved selectively. Q Exhibit 21b is -- Oh. -- your edits. Okay. So, let's -- before I say I think, let's go EFTA00009410

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 183 Q But before we talk about 21b, as a general matter, you talked earlier about the more -- the sort of more typical, usual way in which the U.S. Attorney's Office and local authorities -- prosecutive authorities would work, and that is cooperatively, and would decide who gets what, and -- A Right. Q -- who has what responsibilities. Here, there was not such cooperation, apparently. A There wasn't, and I was going to say, to my recollection, we can look at whether it's in 21b or not, one of my edits was make it clear that it's up to him to figure this out with the state attorney, because we as federal prosecutors are not going to walk in and dictate to the state attorney. Q But in affect, you did. A I -- Q By -- you did -- you did it through Epstein. A I -- I understand. And so, in an attempt to -- in an attempt to reach a resolution, particularly as convoluted as this got, I do think a lesson learned is that it ended up perhaps being worse that if we would not have in the first place. Something -- I -- we, my team, we very much thought that it was important that he go to jail. That it was important that he register. How we got to that ending is EFTA00009411

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 184 unusual, and as an attempt to factor in, here are all the issues around the federal statutes, the concerns about trafficking law, here are the victim issues as to trial, and how -- you know, here is -- here are all these things. And so, on the one hand, deferring to state -- to the state, appears -~- appears logical. On the other hand, the way it played out was a lot more confrontational with the state than I would have hoped, particularly because rather than go back to the state and work it out, in the collateral -- subsequent collateral attacks, they almost tried to state to circumvent and to -- you know, to get the state to circumvent and undermine our agreement. Q And that was -- when you say they, you mean the defense team? A Yes. Q So, you could have -- you could have obviated that whole thing if you had just offered the same result, which would be a plea to a criminal charge with, for sake of argument, a two-year cap, which would have required a Cic plea. A Right. Q And you'd get your restitution, because federal law requires it. They would have been able to proceed under 18 USC 22.55 anyway, and he would have gone to jail and been EFTA00009412

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 185 registered as a sex offender. All just within the normal course of doing business as the U.S. Attorney's Office. Why not pursue that? Who was -- who was calling the shots that said, yeah, we'll do it, but it's got to be with the state? Was that the defense? A So, something that -- that wasn't the defense. Something that I think is important to sort of lay out here, is the -- the -- sort of the terms sheet was developed really early in the case. Q Excuse me, it's dated, it's presented to the team by | rt ty Tt on the 3lst of July. Do you consider that early? A So, from -- let me -- let me clarify from my perspective. It was developed and approved by me before I became involved with interactions with the defense team. Q In the sense that you only met with the defense team for the first time in the person of Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz and company on the 7th of September. A And it wasn't the 7th of -- yeah, the 7th of -- Q The 7th of September. A -- September. Q 2007. A And that is important, because it goes to -- there is a lot of buzz in the media, did they influence this outcome? To my recollection, they may not even have been EFTA00009413

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 186 attorneys of record in this case, and I don't know when they came onto the case. Q Well, there's an e-mail in the package that indicates that you got a call from K and E -- A Right. Q -- on -- on or about the 6th of August. A After the terms sheet was -- Q Correct. A -- presented, and so I say that because we can -- we can -- and probably will talk about whether those terms were the best judgement or not, but once those terms were agreed and approved, with the exception of the 24 to 18 as a material, and then we can talk about how that happened, we stuck, and I backed the office, and I backed | in her negotiations on those. And so, I just -- I think that's important to note. I understand. I -- that's not, for the moment, the Fair. It's the terms themselves, and in this case, the state court disposition, everything that you wanted to get with the state court disposition, you could have gotten with a federal plea -- A We -- -- much more easily. EFTA00009414

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 187 A We could have, and there was certainly some consideration of a 371, and that may be -- you know, in retrospect, it would have obviated a lot of issues. Q So, who said no, that's not -- A So -- Q -- acceptable? A So, there is e-mails that at the time || spoke to me about it. I don't recall, but I'll take responsibility for -- for favoring -- or, not for favoring, but if that's -- if that's what happened, I will take responsibility. From my perspective, and my recollection, there are two -- two factors here. Well, I don't know if it's two factors, but at least two factors. One, concerns about how this interacts with federal law, and what precedents this might mean for other trafficking cases. Two, a southern district's general dislike for rule 11, and -- and then third, there were other federal statutes that were considered at various points, and I remember looking at those and saying, yeah, I don’t -- it doesn't quite -- it doesn't quite fit. Q To -- just to be clear, that process of looking for the square peg that -- A Right. Q -- would fit into the round hole of -- of the two years that had been committed to was a process that came EFTAQ0009415

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 188 before the NPA was actually negotiated, at a time when |] MMMM «was working with defense counsel to see if there was a federal charges that could be within the two year -- A Correct. Q ~~ scope that would allow Jeffery Epstein to serve his time in a federal facility, rather than in a state facility. Is that -- A That -- Q -- is that correct? A -- is correct. Q Okay. A And I recall -- I recall at least one of those ideas, and I recall that my general reaction to it was, we're pushing the law that just looks odd, and we don't want to go there. Q Are you talking the assault on an airplane, or the obstruction of a witness, or -- A IT actually -- my recollection is not about the assault on the airplane -- Q Okay. A -- but about his home being a special maritime jurisdiction. Q Oh. A Which is -- no. Q Definitely square peg in round hole. EFTA00009416

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 189 Right. Q Correct? But there were -- so, I guess it -- is it -- is it -- is it accurate that from your standpoint, an 11C1C federal disposition was not going to be acceptable? That that's not something that you would approve? A It would have been unusual, I don't recall with specificity, but I can -- based on circumstances, infer that it would have been unusual, and -- and I would have looked at it and said this isn't -- this isn't typical. I'm not comfortable. Q So, why not -- why not offer the five year hit, and say that's it? A I wish I could speculate. I mean, I could sit here and speculate after the fact. I can speak to what I recall. I can speak to what I approved. I can speak to the considerations that went into it. There are all sorts of things that in hindsight we may or may not have done, which may have worked out well or not. I -- I can't answer that. Q So, I guess -- I guess the -- sort of the big unanswered as yet question is, why was there a fixation on the two years when that's not something that comported with anything that was possible in the federal scheme? A So, speaking to the two years, I don't remember with specificity. I -- let me give you my general recollection -- EFTA00009417

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 190 ~~ and then let me speculate. Q Mm-hmnm . A My general recollection is that there were earlier charges, you all may know those in more detail than I do, but there were earlier state charges that were brought. Q That were brought? A That -- I'm sorry, not that were brought, that were contemplated. Q Of which there is no public record? A There is -- I don't know if there's public record or not. I can just say my recollection is that there were earlier state charges that were contemplated. The state attorney chose to not pursue those earlier state charges and take it to a grand jury. From public information, my understanding is that that's why Chief HMMM Became upset. My general recollection is that the two years represented what he would have received if the original recommendation, or the original view of the state attorney's office had gone through, and it hadn't been brought to the grand jury, and I would -- I would sort of point to -- you know, in this Exhibit 3 -- I thought it was in Exhibit 3. Somewhere, there's a reference to -- as you can see it -- Exhibit 3, page three, as you and the agents conceded, EFTA00009418

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 191 had Epstein been convicted of a felony that resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI nor our office would have interceded. Q But that is completely silent as to what those original charges may have been, or -- A I -- Q -- how they related to -- I understand. Q Okay. A And so, so, to just close the loop, my understanding is that those two years reflected what that would have been such that the case would not have come to federal authorities in the first place. Q Okay. Where did that information come from? Who said, oh, those charges would have resulted in a two year sentence? Was that something that was analyzed by your office, or did it come from defense counsel, or -- A I-- Q -- from who? A I can't -- I can't speculate. It had to come from someone. Q It did not come from you, is that correct? A So, I would not have the knowledge to know what that charge would have resulted. As an initial matter, a penalty that says up to blank years is rarely that number of EFTA00009419

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 192 years, right? Q Right. A By the time you apply guidelines and all that, and so I would not have the knowledge to know how to calculate that state sentence. Q And in fact were you aware that Florida did have its own state guidelines -- sentencing guidelines? A Generally, I -- I know that -- Q Right. A -- there is a process. Q Right. A Might I at some point have said, you know, Mr. or Ms. AUSA, or management team member, if this had been done the right way in the state, what would he have gotten, and someone comes back to me, possibly, maybe someone at some point had said, look, this would never have come to us if it was done the right way in the state, and this was the term that he would've gotten. At some point in this process, my general understanding is we got to that two years based on not random, but based on, this was the calculation that he would have received. Q Right, and to make sure we understand, is that your actual recollection, or is it your belief based on what you know happened that that's the way it -- EFTA00009420

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

So -- Q -- happened? A So, it is my recollection of my understanding, which is convoluted, so let me -- Q Yeah. A It is how I recall viewing the term sheet when I approved it. Okay. How it got into -=- and so, if we got to the term It's 21 -- no, it's not. It's -- it's one of these exhibits. wR. BB: is. BY Ms. yg. Q Thank you, 15. A 15. So, if we go to the terms sheet, Epstein pleads guilty -- contender to an information follow -- charging him with -- these particular statutes are -- I am not familiar with, but I would have assumed that either | Or someone else would have selected them appropriately. It makes a binding recommendation to serve at least two years in prison. Q Let me back up if I could. Those three statutes, did you understand those three statutes to be the three statutes that -- or, to be the statutes that the state EFTA00009421

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

originally was going to bring? A I can't speak to that. Q You don't know. I don't know. So, you don't know what the statutes were? Yeah. Okay. A Yeah. You know, it makes a joint binding recommendation at least two years in prison. My -- my understanding, my recollection of my understanding, when I reviewed these terms, is that that reflected what he would have received if he had -- if the state had gone through with an initial -- with an initial charge, and from our perspective at the time, that would have obviated the need in the first place to have engaged federal authorities. Agree or disagree with the logic, I'm trying to explain the logic. Q Mm-hmm. No, I understand. Thank you for that clarification. Is it -- you posited a couple of possibilities that you might have said, you know, gee, what would -- A Right. Q -- he be looking at if -- A Right. Q -- the state had done what it originally set out to do or was supposed to do. Is it -- how also likely is it | | EFTA00009422

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 195 that someone came to you, one of your people, and said, hey, I suggest we go with two years, because the same reason. A It's -- Q In other words, it came from -- A Right. Q -- somebody else to you, and you agreed. A So, it's very difficult to reconstruct this in retrospect, in part because I don't want to leave the impression that there was one meeting where this was discussed -- Q Mm-hmm. A —- as opposed to, you've got -- you're sitting across the hall from someone, you're sitting down the hall from someone. There are ongoing discussions, how do we resolve a matter that has some thorny legal questions, some difficult victim witness questions, and this is the kind of back and forth where I might have indicated a concern, someone was trying to address that concern, or I might have asked the question. It -- it's -- Q Well, you've already told us that you did express concern -- A Right. Q -- about the case, and somebody -- and you were having conversations with J] MBM, possibly ME EE, correct? EFTA00009423

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 196 A Correct. Q And is it possible -- does it -- is it reasonable that one of them might have come up with a solution for you to your problems? A And that's the point that I'm -- Q Okay. A -- trying to make. It's certainly possible, and it's difficult to reconstruct that 12 years after the fact. Q All right. All right. I want to go back to wind up this -- this concern about engagement with the federal -- I mean, engaging the federal system into the state process. 21b is the exhibit that is your comments really on the very final version of -- A Right. Q -- the NPA on September 24, and the -- the language is quite striking to us in this regard, looking at the -- at the first e-mail there, you've talked about deleting the petite policy portion upon 9] BBB) cecommendation, and inserting global resolution language which you've proposed. And then you then say, "I'm not comfortable with requiring the state attorney to enter into a joining recommendation," and then you propose essentially taking out a mention of the state attorney's office regarding the -- the sentence recommendation, and then you also note, "I'm not comfortable with requiring a state court to stick with our EFTA00009424

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 197 timeline," and you ask that the reference be softened -- your term is to soften. You also use soften below when you talk about your -- making it -- a concern about making Epstein an agent of the U.S. regarding negotiations. So, you're really -- and then at the very top, in the -- in the later follow up e- mail, you express concern about, "Do we really need to set a date for his reporting? I'm very nervous about that. If I were a judge, I would be upset by the federal government telling a state court how to manage their calendar. Can we delete?" A Right. Q So, clearly you're very mindful, right, of the importance of not injecting the federal sovereign into the state sovereign. A Correct. Q Fair? All right, but yet, this whole set up, the whole NPA did require certain actions to eccur, however they came about, in the state, because of the federal requirement. A Yes. Q And why was that a good idea? A In hindsight, the complexity that this took on clearly is something that -- that if I was advising a fellow U.S. Attorney today, I would say, think it through. I do think it would have played differently if he had actually not EFTA00009425

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 198 done all the collateral deals and stuck to what was -- Q But that came later. A tt Q This is before it's signed. A It came -- it came later, but let me -- let me at least say that, and stuck to October 26th, but look, I understand your point, and -- and the response that I can give was, you have -- we had these concerns, but we also thought it was very important that he serve some real punishment, and that he register. And whether -- whether we balance that or not, a lot of people are going to be questioning for a long, long time, but that’s how we balanced it. Q Because the state disposition was not a precondition to achieving those two objectives. You could have done it with a federal plea, serving time -- A Arguably -- Q -- and the offender registration. A Arguably, we could have done it with a federal plea if judges would have gone -- if judges would have gone for rule lls, which in the Southern District they tend not to, but arguably. I -- Q Okay. Okay. I just wanted to -- A And you know, again, this is -- this is a hindsight thing, but yes. EFTA00009426

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page 199 Q It is, but what we're focusing on is not so much the hindsight as the -- at the time, did this make sense? And it seems that you all were putting in so much effort, and it was so hard to make this come together and work, that it -- it's striking that it didn't collapse of its own -- of its -- of its own weight. A And to that point, let me say, you know, it's also, if I had to speculate, one question that I'd -- that I'd ask is, everyone's putting in all this effort. You know, J put in a lot of work on the negotiations with the defense counsel that were somewhere between zealous and difficult. Q Meaning defense counsel were -- A Yeah. -- between zealous and -- Yeah. Q -- difficult? A Yeah. Whether there's zealous advocates or cross line to rude, we can have conversations about, and at what point, you know, would it have proceeded differently if folks said, let's take a big step back, and let's seriously reconsider? But everyone was very, let's get the job done, let's put him in jail. And I -- look, I'm speculating in hindsight. Q But could you not have pulled the Plug at any time before it was signed? I mean, clearly by the morning of that EFTA00009427