OPR interview of Alexander Acosta on the Epstein non-prosecution deal, 2019

Page 1 THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY x INTERVIEW OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA : x Washington, D.C. Friday, October 18, 2019 Interview of: R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA a witness of lawful age, taken on behalf of the United States Department of Justice in the above-entitled action, before Beth Roots, Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, in the offices of the U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., commencing at 9:34 a.m. Diversified Reporting Services, Inc.¶

APPEARANCES:	Page 2
On Behalf of the Department of Justice:
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
On Behalf of the Witness:
GORDON D. TODD, ESQ.
T.J. HERRON, ESQ
Sidley Austin LLP
1501 K Street Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005

Page PROCEEDINGS 2 Whereupon, 3 R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 5 was examined and testified as follows: 6 EXAMINATION BY MS. Q So, would you tell us your name, please? A Rene Alexander Acosta. Q And Mr. Acosta, you’re accompanied by your 11 attorney, Gordon Todd, is that correct? 2 , • And Mr. Todd, would you identify the associate you have with you? MR. HERRON: Yes, T.J. Herron. MS. : H-e-r-r-o-n? 17 MR. HERRON: Correct. 18 MS. : Thank you. Mr. Acosta, I’m 19 I am a counsel with the Office of Professional 20 Responsibility here at the Department of Justice, and with me 21 are my fellow OPR counsel, and IIII 22 . We are in a conference room at the Department of 23 Justice main building on today, October 18, 2019, and we’re 24 starting at about 9:30 in the morning. Before we start, I’d 25 just want to put on the record that Mr. worked in¶

Page 4 1 the Civil Rights Division at the time that you were the AAG 2 heading that division, and I believe had an occasion to 3 briefly meet you in connection with a matter. 4 THE WITNESS: Could I ask what section? 5 MR. I was in the special litigation 6 section. 7 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. 8 MR. : And I provided Mr. Acosta some 9 talking points for a press situation that we had in that 10 case. 11 THE WITNESS: 14141. 12 MR. : Yes. 13 THE WITNESS: Probably. 14 BY MS. 15 Q All right. Thank you. Mr. Acosta, OPR is 16 investigating two things. As you know, one, whether one or 17 more federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida 18 U.S. Attorney’s Office may have committed professional 19 misconduct by entering into the non-prosecution agreement, or 20 NPA, in 2007 with Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was under 21 investigation by that office, and the FBI, for engaging in 22 widespread sexual misconduct involving underage females. 23 The second thing we’re investigating is Judge 24 Marra’s finding of February of this year, 2019, that the 25 government may have violated — or, actually, he found the¶

Page 5¶

1 government did violate the CVRA, or Crime Victims’ Rights Act 2 when it entered into the MPA without first providing the 3 victims with notice and a reasonable right to confer with the 4 government.¶

5 You are a subject of the OPR investigation, that 6 is, one of — somebody whose conduct is being reviewed and 7 evaluated by OPR, and specifically as U.S. Attorney at the 8 time for the Southern District of Florida, you had the 9 ultimate authority over the Epstein for a period of two and a 10 half years, as we understand it, from the time the line AUSA 11 first briefed you and then criminal chief 12 in July of 2006, and until you were formally 13 recused from the case on or about the 8th of December, 2008, 14 after notifying the executive office of the U.S. Attorneys 15 that you were seeking employment with Kirkland S Ellis, a 16 firm of which two attorneys, Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz had 17 been representing Jeffrey Epstein. Is that correct? 18 A We may — we may get into it a little bit later, 19 but I think the characterization of my seeking employment is 20 not accurate, we can talk about that a little bit later. 21 Q All right. We have the documents that relate to 22 that. So, that’s what we’re — we’re basing it on. 23 A Correct. 24 Q And I believe the term that’s used is seeking 25 employment.¶

Page 6 1 A That — that is the term used in the e-mail. I 2 think I addressed that in my — I believe Mr. Todd addressed 3 that in the letter that was sent to — 4 5 6 Q All right. A — OPR. Q All right. Thank you. So, we recognize that 7 you’re not longer with the Department of Justice — 8 A Right. 9 Q — and that it is your choice to come and talk to 10 us, and we very much appreciate your willingness to 11 voluntarily do so and help us figure this case out. OPR 12 provided you with a few thousand pages of records, e-mails, 13 and correspondence and some other documents that reflect your 14 involvement in the Epstein matter over that two and a half 15 year period. 16 Now that you’ve had a chance to review, I hope, 17 those e-mails and other documents, we hope you can be 18 specific in helping us understand what happened. Have you in 19 fact been able to review those documents? 20 A Yes, I have. 21 Q Thank you. OPR asked you for a written response to 22 certain questions, and we’ve received and reviewed a written 23 response prepared and submitted not by you, but by your 24 attorney, Mr. Todd, on your behalf. Have you reviewed his 25 response to —¶

Page 7 1 2 3 4 A Yes. Q — you? A Yes, I have. Q And will you now under oath subscribe to that 5 response as if you had submitted to it yourself? 6 A So, Mr. Todd spoke to me and conveyed the 7 investigation that I provide him. I believe he conveyed that 8 information accurately, and the statements that he ascribes 9 to me in that letter I believe are accurate. 10 Q All right. Do you have any changes or corrections 11 to that written response? 12 A No, I do not. 13 Q Is there anything in it that you do not agree with? 14 A Again, I think that the statements that he ascribes 15 to me are accurate, and I agree with them. 16 Q All right. So, we are going to accept that 17 statement as representing accurately your — what you would 18 have responded if you had responded to us directly. Is that 19 correct? 20 A I — yes, the statements, he basically gives my 21 positions, and I believe that he gave my positions 22 accurately. 23 Q Perfect. Thank you. So, as we ask questions and 24 refer to documents, we would like you to correct any 25 misstatements in our questions, or any misstatements or¶

Page 8 1 errors that are in the documents themselves, because we want 2 to make sure the entire record — 3 A Mm-hmm. 4 Q — is correct. Also, there’s been an enormous 5 amount of publicity about the Epstein case, particularly this 6 year, including about the events and decisions made back in 7 2006 to 2010 that are the subject of our investigation. And 8 so as best you can, we ask you to try to answer today from 9 your knowledge, understanding, and recollections as of that 10 period of time. However, to the extent you are asked or do 11 speak retroactively, retrospectively, we’ll just make it 12 clear that you’re doing so. 13 A All right. 14 Q Okay? 15 A And if I could just say, one of the difficulties is 16 with everything that — all the publicity and all the 17 documents that have made it to the press and in litigation 18 distinguishing between recollection versus after the fact 19 Q Right. 20 A — speculation, and I will try, but I would 21 appreciate reminders along the way, because it’s, it’s an 22 important distinction, but it’s kind of hard sometimes. 23 Q we recognize particularly the importance of it. 24 A Right. 25 Q That’s — that’s precisely the heart of —¶

Page 9 1 A Yeah. 2 Q — our matter. So, Mr. Acosta, your professional 3 background is a matter of public record. I have a couple of 4 questions. By what state bar are you currently licensed? 5 A So, I am inactive in I believe inactive in 6 Pennsylvania and also in D.C. 7 8 9 Q All right, and not in Florida? A Not in Florida. Q So, are — is it — do I understand that you are 10 not currently an active member of any bar? 11 A I would have to confirm with D.C. I said not 12 inactive in Pennsylvania and in D.C. because I am not certain 13 whether I’m currently active or inactive in D.C. I am not 14 currently practicing, and so I would have renewed under 15 either active or inactive. 16 Q All right. 17 A And we can — 18 Q we — 19 A We can — 20 Q We — 21 A We can verify that and get that. 22 Q We would appreciate it if Mr. Todd could let us 23 know your current status. I also would like to know the 24 status — your bar status in the period of 2006 through 2008. 25 Do you know what that was?¶

Page 10 1 A Most likely — I can — I can speculate. I don’t 2 know as a fact. Mostly likely active in D.C. 3 Q Mm-hmm. 4 A And inactive in Pennsylvania. 5 Q Okay, but likely active somewhere, correct? 6 A Yes. Yes, I think that’s a requirement. 7 Q Yes, that is a — 8 A And so — 9 Q — requirement. 10 A So, it would be D.C., the distinction between 11 active and inactive in D.C. is more minor, as I recall, than 12 Pennsylvania where there’s a large fee difference. 13 Q All right, thank you, and we look forward to 14 hearing confirmation of that from you, Mr. Todd. So, after 15 serving nearly two years as the assistant attorney general in 16 charge of the department’s civil rights division, you were 17 presidentially appointed the interim U.S. Attorney for the 18 Southern District of Florida in June of 2005, and then as we 19 understand it, you were formally nominated as U.S. Attorney 20 in June of 2006, and after being confirmed by the United 21 States Senate, you were sworn in by the U.S. Attorney — as 22 U.S. Attorney in late October 2006. 23 A I think that may be inaccurate. I would have to 24 confirm. When you say presidentially appointed, I believe it 25 may have been appointed by the chief judge at the request of¶

Page 11 1 the Attorney General. The chief judge has appointing 2 authority. 3 Q Okay. 4 A And you’d have to go back and confirm whether it 5 was either an AG designation or the chief judge — 6 Q All right. 7 A — which is different than presidential. 8 Q And I understand, and again, I would appreciate if 9 you could — 10 A Yeah. 11 Q — follow up on that — 12 A I — I’m — 13 Q — Mr. Todd. 14 A — not certain how to confirm that. That’s 15 something that in all candor the department would know — 16 Q All right. 17 A — much better than I. 18 Q Then we will pursue it. My point is that there was 19 a change in your status from interim to — you — the U.S. 20 Attorney with the — with the full — 21 A Correct. 22 Q — confirmation. How if at all did that change in 23 status affect your view of and your exercise of your 24 authority as U.S. Attorney? 25 A So, it’s difficult to recall. You’re now asking¶

Page 12 1 that just ten years back, but even further back. I was 2 interim for a sufficiently long period of time that — that 3 by the time the change in status took place, I would 4 speculate that I was, in my mind, the, you know, acting as 5 U.S. Attorney whether you have an adjunctive interim, or 6 acting in front of your name or not. 7 You know, I — I had great people. I don’t recall 8 when — when came on board as first assistant, but he 9 was my crim chief, and I thought for the continuity of the 10 office it was important to promote him to first assistant, 11 and — Q He was promoted actually effective October of 2006. 3 You made a series — according to e-mails — the 14 announcement — the personnel announcement was made to be 15 effective in October 2006 naming 16 chief, and as first — 17 A Right. 18 Q — assistant. 19 A Right, and they — they were both long serving 20 professionals within the office, and basically, as my 21 recollection, everyone just moved up one wrung. 22 Q Okay. as criminal 23 A You would know better than I, because you have 24 those records. And so, sitting here today, I don’t recall 25 any specific way in which that shift would have impacted —¶

Page 13 1 Q All right. 2 A — my thinking. 3 Q You had not served as a — as a prosecutor before, 4 and had — didn’t have direct criminal experience is my 5 understanding. 6 A The — that is correct. I had supervised — civil 7 rights, for example, had supervised criminal prosecutions, 8 but I had not been a line prosecutor previously. 9 Q So, as the U.S. Attorney supervising a couple of 10 hundred — 11 A Right. 12 Q — line prosecutors, most involved in criminal 13 work, how — what — what — what interested you most, or 14 appealed to you most as you undertook your — and carried out 15 your duties as U.S. Attorney? 16 A What interested me and appealed to me. So, the 17 work of the office, I mean, the — it’s a broad question, but 18 the work of — 19 Q )t-hmm. 20 A — that office and any U.S. Attorney’s Office I 21 think is incredibly impactful to any local community, and I 22 very much enjoyed being a part of the effort to bring folks 23 to justice, to move policy initiatives. You know, I recall 24 early on, we identified healthcare fraud 25 Q Ha-hmm.¶

Page 14 1 A — as one big — one big area, and we had one of 2 the largest out of our — the largest healthcare fraud 3 initiative. You know, we focused quite a bit on gun 4 violence, and we did a great job on that, and it’s one of 5 those jobs where people feel very good about what they do, 6 and it’s great to be part of it. I’m sure what — 7 Q No, that’s — 8 A — okay. 9 Q That’s helpful. It just gives us a 10 A Yeah. 11 Q — some perspective. 12 A Yeah. 13 Q Was there any aspect of it that you particularly 14 disliked? 15 A To the extent you’re dealing with personnel issues, 16 I think personnel issues are — are rarely the preferred part 17 of any executive function. 18 Q You mean the conflicts among attorneys, things like 19 that, or performance issues? 20 A Performance issues. 21 Q All right. 22 A And you know, when you’ve got — in any large 23 office, you get personnel issues, disciplinary issues, and 24 those are never — 25 Q Mm-hmm.¶

Page 15 1 A — those are never fun. 2 Q MM-hmm. So, we talked about the personnel — high 3 level personnel changes you made sort of after your first 4 year there. I= had, we understand, been functioning 5 de facto as a first assistant while IS was not. 6 He — we understand had been first assistant, but 7 he stepped away, and ME NM came in to essentially take 8 over his brief until he was formerly appointed first 9 assistant. Is that consistent with your memory? 10 A So, you might have characterized that more strongly 11 that I would have. 12 Q Okay. 13 A Again, it’s difficult to recreate from back then, 14 but there was certainly a transition period from Mr. 15 to Mr. , and if I could, because when you 16 said high level changes, my intent — it was a great office. 17 Great professionals. My intent in elevating Mr. was 18 just you go from criminal chief to first assistant, and I 19 don’t recall Mr. prior position, but I know that he 20 was also elevated. I think he might have been major crimes, 21 but — 22 Q That’s correct. 23 A — I’d be — I’d be speculating. 24 Q We can — 25 A I could guess it.¶

a e 1 1 Q We can verify that. 2 A Okay. 3 Q Yes. What was your assessment of His 4 capabilities, his judgement, and his working relationship 5 with you on a day to day basis? 6 A Outstanding. He had been in the office for 7 decades. He was respected by everyone. He had a good tone 8 to him. He was someone, you know, I wanted individuals 9 around me that were respected within the office and that were 10 trusted and that had been there for a long time, and then I 11 think I was very lucky to — to have that in my management 12 team. 13 Q As we understand it, your office as U.S. Attorney 14 was sort of on one side of the reception area, and the first 5 assistant’s office is on the other side. Is that correct? _E A Thi,t Ls _erred. 17 Q Or, at the time — 18 A Correm 19 Q — that was correct. So, did you and 20 have a sort of easy back and forth — 21 A Walking — 22 Q — open door? 23 A — into each other’s offices multiple times a 24 day — 4 All right.¶

Page 17 1 2 A — kind of relationship. Q All right, and given that he had had experience 3 throughout his career at the department in the criminal arena 4 and you had not, to what extent would you rely on him, among 5 others, for guidance, perspective, information, and so on? 6 A I named him first assistant because I valued his 7 guidance and his perspectives and I thought those were 8 valuable. 9 Q Okay. You also, as we pointed out, appointed 10 to succeed as criminal chief effective 11 October of 2006, and he served for about ten months before he 12 left for private practice. He left at the beginning of 13 August — 14 A Mm-hmm. 15 Q — 2007. What — you — you did — you said you 16 didn’t recall, as we sit here today, what section he’d come 17 from. 18 A Right. I guessed it was major crimes. 19 Q All right. Were you — what was your assessment of 20 21 A Outstanding as well, and if I could say, when I say 22 I don’t recall but I guess, when you’re going back 12 years, 23 sometimes you get an impression but you can’t say it’s a 24 recollection, and that’s going to come up multiple times 25 today, just because it’s a while ago.¶

Page 18 1 Q As long as we make that distinction — 2 A Right. 3 Q — both are helpful. 4 A Right, and so — so, whether it’s a recollection or 5 a construction after the fact, I can’t can’t say, but 6 you know, I — I thought that one of the helpful factors with 7 is he had spent a lot of time — and major crimes is the 8 most active — active unit. I assume you all know the 9 structures of the office — 10 Q Mm-hmm. 11 A — but major crimes is not major crimes, it’s sort 12 of the entry level crimes, and I valued the fact that he had 13 trained and, you know, so many AUSAs, and really spent a lot 14 of time reviewing — the major crimes chief as opposed to the 15 other chiefs spends a lot of time reviewing the work of 16 AUSAs, and so, he would be someone who is very experienced 17 and able to get in the weeds. 18 Q And he in fact was around — during that time 19 period, had gone back in the courtroom, if you recall, to 20 actually try a major case. Do you recall that? /t was a — 21 A I didn’t until you — 22 Q — major fraud case. 23 A — mentioned — I didn’t until you mentioned it, 24 and now there’s something in the back of my head that’s 25 saying that sounds right, but I can’t give you more detail.¶

Page 19 1 Q All right. What was your assessment of 2 sort of working style, and particularly working 3 with you? 4 A You know, again, positive. You know, we didn’t — 5 I didn’t see him as often as Mr. , but — 6 7 Q He — was he located on the same floor? A He was located on the same floor, but not within 8 the same suite. 9 Q MM-hmm. 10 A And — and that — that affects interaction, but a 11 positive working relationship. 12 Q All right, and how how — to what extent would 13 you, as criminal chief, was he relied on by you as 14 distinguished from with regard to the criminal 15 matters pending? 16 A Also relied on. Depend — that would depend almost 17 on the matter for — 18 Q Okay. 19 A — as in a typical situation, he would bring things 20 to who would them bring them to me along, and so he 21 would bring things to , and then depending on their 22 discussion, they might both walk into my office. But he 23 would typically run things through before coming to me. 24 Q Were there occasions when he would come to you 25 directly?¶

Page 20 1 2 3 A Sure. That’s why I said in a typical — Q Okay. A It’s difficult to sort of recreate the 4 interactions, but he certainly could come to me directly, and 5 in some cases, I would say probably would. 6 Q Again, it being a large office with several 7 physical locations, and we understand it, a very high 8 volume — 9 A Mm-hmm. 10 Q — of cases — 11 A Right. 12 Q — and particularly in the criminal context, is it 13 fair to say you didn’t review every prosecution as it was 14 brought? 15 A It — it is not just fair, but accurate. I recall 16 a conversation with a U.S. Attorney from a small district 17 early on at one U.S. Attorney’s conference where we compared 18 notes, and the interaction of an office with 30 prosecutors 19 is very different than one with — 20 Q Hm-hmm. 21 A — a few hundred prosecutors. 22 Q So, when you did engage on a — on a criminal case, 23 would you — whether it was a planned prosecution or a case 24 heading to trial, would you generally rely on written 25 submissions, or would you — this is really an —¶

Page 21 1 A Mm-hmm. 2 Q — inquiry into — 3 A Right. 4 Q — your style, or would you have everybody S together, and talk about it, or would you rely on your most 6 immediate subordinates to be briefing you? How — which one 7 of those — A So — 9 Q — kinds of — 10 A So — 11 Q — approaches — 12 A So — 13 Q — did you take? 14 A I would say that really depended, and probably 15 varied based on — on individual needs. For the most part, I 16 would most likely just speak with my first assistant and/or 17 criminal chief, and assess what else needed to be done. 18 Q In other words, you would sort of do it on a — 19 sort of on a verbal, or based on oral — 20 A Correct. 21 Q — interaction and — 22 A Correct. 23 Q — presentation as opposed to going through stacks 24 of papers? 25 A For — for the — I would say that was typical.¶

1 Q Yeah. 2 A I don’t want to say that was the case every single 3 time, but that was — was typical. 4 Q All right, and to what extent did you go out and 5 about to encounter the line attorneys, or example? Was that 6 something that you were able to do and wanted to do? 7 A Yes, and yes, and you know, I — when I started, I 8 made it a point of walking every floor and meeting everyone, 9 and in — toward the end of the day, I would also if I could 10 make it a point — particularly of major crimes of just 11 walking down to the floor and seeing who was there and what 12 they were doing and — and sort of popping my head in and 13 just saying hi because I think it’s the right thing to do. 14 Q Okay. Okay. Was that a way to support the troops, 15 or was it more a way for you to find — to become informed 16 about what was going on? 17 A Probably a little of both, of support the troops, 18 but also get the temperature for the office, see how matters 19 are progressing. 20 Q You at the criminal — or, rather, the civil rights 21 division, had experience with human trafficking and child sex 22 trafficking cases — 23 A Correct. 24 Q — under your supervision. We understand that you 25 brought that concern, or your concern about those issues with¶

Page 22¶

Page 23 1 you to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and that — we know that 2 under your tenure, the U.S. Attorney’s Office had many 3 successful prosecutions involving conduct ranging from 4 internet child pornography — 5 A Mm-hmm. 6 Q — to international sex tourism — 7 A Correct. 8 Q — victimizing children in particular. In mid-9 2007, you — according to press reports, you set up a new 10 special prosecutions unit — 11 A Correct. 12 Q — to focus on, among other things, sex crimes 13 against children. Could you tell us what importance those 14 kinds of cases held for you as U.S. Attorney? 15 A Sure. If I could — if I could just back up a 16 little bit, because the — the question goes — the special 17 prosecutions unit, and let me address that part of it. There 18 are a few things embedded in that. 19 Q MM-hmm. 20 A There’s — there’s — the special prosecutions unit 21 was set up because there were some issues that — that I 22 thought were important to pursue in particular, and one of 23 those was — was sort of the trafficking issues. Another one 24 was the gun violence, and the intent of special prosecutions 25 was to have a group of individuals that would sort of be¶

Page 24 1 dedicated and not part of the usual major crimes group. So, 2 it wasn’t exclusively — I — your question may have implied 3 it was exclusively for sex crimes, and it — 4 Q Oh, no. 5 A — and it wasn’t — yeah. 6 Q No, I understand it was not. 7 A Right. 8 Q Okay. 9 A And so, I thought it was sufficiently important, 10 and so, it was one of the — one of the initiatives that we 11 were certainly pursuing. 12 Q And was that something that you can — that — to 13 which you brought your experience as head of the civil rights 14 division as well? 15 A It was. I think — not I think I know when I was 16 head of civil rights that that’s something that I’d put 17 particular emphasis on, and I thought civil rights really 18 stepped up and did a great job on that. 19 Q Did you yourself ever — I recognize you were never 20 a prosecutor as such. 21 A Right. 22 Q But did you ever have experience being involved in 23 a prosecution that — sort of the nitty-gritty of the 24 prosecution of that kind of case? Sort of seconding yourself 25 to a trial team, for example, or an investigation?¶

Page 25 1 A So, if by nitty-gritty you mean seconding myself to 2 a trial team the answer would be no. 3 Q All right. 4 A There are a number of cases that I recall being 5 briefed on and talking about, but — 6 7 A 8 9 program, 10 A 11 12 appointed 13 A Correct. 14 Q — coordinator, and she was also of course the line 15 attorney on the Epstein case. How well did you know 16 , and can you — can you give us your assessment of 17 her capabilities, judgement, and her interaction with you? 18 A So, a few things in there. How well did I know her 19 prior to appointment? I don’t recall. I’m not — I don’t 20 think I knew her particularly well prior to appointment. She 21 was clearly respected within the office, and / don’t recall 22 but I can speculate that she was appointed based on 23 recommendations of management, and her interest and some 24 combination — and prior work and some combination thereof. 25 You asked me to characterize — But at that high level? Correct. All right. The department set up in 2006 a PSC a Project Safe Childhood program — Correct. — focused on internet child pornography, and you as your first PSC —¶

Page 26 1 Q Her — your view of 2 A Right. 3 Q — her capabilities, her judgement 4 A Right. 5 Q her acumen, her knowledge of the law. 6 A I think she was a good, strong, professional AUSA. 7 I mean — 8 Q Do you have any — did you have any negative — you 9 know, anything less than fully positive in your assessment of 10 her? 11 A No. 12 Q Okay. 13 A I think she was a good, strong, dedicated AUSA. 14 Q All right. 15 A Yeah. 16 Q — was the managing AUSA at the West Palm Beach 17 office. 18 A Correct. 19 Q At least — and would — and worked 20 there. How closely did you work with and again, 21 that — 22 A 24m-hmm. 23 02 — assessment question — 24 A Right. 25 Q — what was your assessment of him?¶

Page 27 1 A So, less so, only because of geographic distance. 2 Q Mt-hmm. 3 A I would also say he was a respected professional. 4 He had a good reputation. He went on to be chief of staff 5 here at the — at the criminal division, which I think speaks 6 to how he was viewed within the department. 7 Q min-hmm. 8 A And so, I would say positive. 9 Q Okay. So, now turning to the Epstein case. 10 A Yeah. 11 Q Now that your recall has been refreshed by virtue 12 of the documents we’ve provided, before we get into the 13 actual sort of documents and some of the details of the 14 events, would you please give us a general overview of what 15 you currently remember, refreshed, about how the case came 16 into the U.S. Attorney’s Office, how it was assessed for 17 prosecution, and how and why the decision was made to resolve 18 it with a two-year state plea that ultimately became an 18 — 19 A Okay. 20 Q — I mean, yeah, a two year state plea that 21 ultimate became — 22 A All right. 23 Q — an 18 month state plea. 24 A Okay, so — 25 MR. HERRON: Before you answer the question, let me¶

Page 28 1 just jump in on the notion of refresh your recollection, 2 which is — of course has a very specific legal meaning, and 3 I think to assert that Mr. Acosta’s recollection has been 4 refreshed generally probably overstates it. It’s really a 5 document by document, issue by issue thing. So, I’d push 6 back on that — 7 MS. : I — 8 MR. HERRON: — a little bit, but the question is 9 fair and accurate. 10 MS. : If you’re talking about handing him 11 a document to refresh an exhausted recollection, that’s not 12 the process we’re talking about. We’re using it in a more 13 lay term that, you know, if we asked you this before, giving 14 you all these documents, you’d probably would have not been 15 able to be as full in your responses. So, we’re asking for 16 your full response. Thank you. 17 MR. HERRON: We appreciate the opportunity to 18 review the documents, and Alex, in your answers, try to 19 distinguish what you actually recall — 20 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 21 MR. HERRON: — in your own head versus what you 22 saw in the documents. 23 MS. : Yeah. 24 MR. HERRON: And that would make for — 25 MS. . Thank you.¶

EFTA00009256¶

Page 29 MR. HERRON: — the cleanest record. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. So, three parts. How did it 3 come into the office? How did — I’m sorry — 4 BY MS. 5 Q How was — how did it come in? 6 A Right. Q How was it assessed for prosecution — 8 A Right. Q — and then how and — how and why the decision was made — A • — to resolve it the way it was. 13 A So, so, let’s begin with how did it come into the 14 office. Putting all the documents aside, I can’t say with 5 certainty how it came in. I can speculate how it came in, 16 and the way it would have come into the office is can 17 speculate that the chief — the chief rider from Palm Beach 18 County would have brought it to either the FBI or to the Palm 19 Beach Office. I’m not certain that I would have asked who 20 brought this case to the office as opposed to the case is now 21 in the office, so let’s — 22 Q Right. 23 A — let’s discuss it, right? The format, or the 24 mode in which it came in I think is important, because my 25 recollection is it arrived to us in the position that the¶

Page 30 1 state attorney had negotiated a plea, and that the reason 2 that we looked at it was that that plea was going to be — 3 that there had been an initial charge that wasn’t pursued, 4 and that required jail time and registration, and that the S plea that was going to be taken was a charge that didn’t 6 require jail time, and didn’t require registration, and based 7 on the preliminary assessment of the facts, that seemed — 8 that seems wrong. So, that’s how did it arrive. The next 9 question was — 10 Q How was it assessed for federal prosecution? 11 A So — so, it was assessed for federal prosecution, 12 my recollection, from — from very early on, and I’m sure 13 we’ll talk about this some more, is you have a case that, 14 while technically it wasn’t final at the state level, but for 15 federal involvement, would have been final, and — and so 16 from the earliest point, we were thinking federal versus 17 state and petite, and the contemporaneous record sort of 18 shows at least the material that I got, the earliest 19 communication was Mr. telling me that is 20 preparing a petite policy waiver — that Ms. is 21 preparing a petite policy waiver, and that’s consistent with 22 my recollection of how it was assessed, and — and then 23 brought in — assessed, you know, does it make sense to go 24 forward, yes, investigate, and circle back. And then — and 25 then the third part was the —¶

EFTA00009258¶

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

PaGe the case and why resolve it, but why with a two year state 2 plea? What’s the — 3 5 A And so — 4 — overview? A And so my general recollection is — my 6 understanding — if I was asked, what is the best 7 understanding that I have of why two years, is that is what 8 would have been obtained in one of the original state 9 charges. Again, this is — 10 Q How do you know that? A 12 Q How did you know that? 13 A I’m — that’s why I say general recollection. I’m 14 reconstructing memories of that 12 years ago. I can 15 speculate that at some point, the matter came up, and I or 16 someone else said if, you know, what would the original — 17 what would the original plea have — you know, what would the 18 original charges have likely brought? And someone said this 19 amount. 20 Q How would have said that? 21 A I — I’m speculating at this point. I don’t have a 22 recollection, but — but that’s — that’s my general 23 understanding. 24 Q All right. All right. We’ll now unpack — 25 A Yeah, I —¶

Page 33 1 2 3 Q — some of that. A — I noticed. Q And by the way, my colleagues, we’re all in this 4 boat together. So, they’re going to feel free to — 5 6 7 8 A I know. Q — chime in — A Yeah. Q as they see fit. So, the first thing going — 9 going to the intake of the case, we know from the records 10 that — and by the way, we’ve obviously done a great deal of 11 other investigation — 12 A Right. 13 Q — and spoken to many people. So, 14 briefed you and pretty much when the case first 15 came in — 16 A Mm-hmm. 17 Q — in mid-2006, after the FBI and indeed the 18 office — the U.S. Attorney’s Office in West Palm had opened 19 the case, but before Epstein was indicted. So, this first 20 exhibit, Exhibit No. 1 that you have in your binder before 21 you — or, in your folder before you — is that e-mail from 22 to you that you just referred to dated July 24 — 23 A Right. 24 Q — 2006, in which he’s sort of passing on the 25 information that Epstein has by now been arrested — been¶

Page 34 1 indicted — arrested and indicted by the state. Do you 2 recall anything about that original briefing from 3 4 A I — I don’t. 5 Q All right. Did you know at the time that — at the 6 time she briefed you — 7 A Mm-hmm. 8 Q — which is prior to Exhibit 1, did you know who 9 Epstein was? 10 A I did not. 11 Q Never heard of him, to your knowledge? 12 A To my knowledge, I don’t recall having heard of 13 him. 14 Q And what did you understand at that early point the 15 case to be about? 16 A So, I don’t recall the briefing, and so I can’t 17 give an independent recollection. You know, based on this, I 18 mean, the — 19 Q You’re talking about Exhibit 1, and you’re — 20 A Based on — 21 Q — looking at — 22 A — based on Exhibit 1, you know, I can — I can 23 infer that this would have been my general understanding of 24 the case, and you know, and the key things that I point here 25 is pre-trial diversion, which is code for no jail time, and¶

Page 35 1 petite policy. 2 Q But this — what — Exhibit No. 1 — 3 A Right. 4 Q — does not make it clear to you that this case 5 involved allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had been enticing, 6 coercing, whatever verb you want to use, young, underage 7 females — we will for the record call them girls here — 8 A Mm-hmm. 9 Q — as opposed to women, and these underage females 10 were being paid to provide him essentially with sex, or 11 sexual activity or conduct, of a pretty salacious nature. Do 12 you recall that as being essentially what you were briefed on 13 from the beginning? 14 A Again, I don’t recall the initial briefing. I take 15 it based on your review that there was an initial briefing. 16 I can’t say the degree of detail. I can’t say what it was 17 about. As a — as a typical matter, I wouldn’t be briefed 18 when a case comes into the office other than being made 19 aware, this is a case, this is what we’re looking at. 20 Q So, then, if you — 21 A Sure. 22 Q — understanding you don’t remember the briefing, 23 is it fair to say that you did have some understanding of 24 what the case that was that West Palm Beach was pursuing as 25 of mid-2006?¶

Page 36 1 A I certainly had an understanding of the general 2 facts of the case early on. I can’t speak to whether it was 3 mid-2006 versus late 2006 versus 2007, but — 4 Q Mm-hmm. 5 A — early on, I certainly had an understanding that 6 it was a case that involved, you know, a billionaire who was 7 doing sordid things with young women or girls who were 8 minors. 9 and the records indicate that her 10 concern in bringing this all the way to you — 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Km-hmm. Q — and her first at that time criminal chief — A Right. Q — but sort of acting First Assistant was because she was afraid of political pressure that might be brought to bear against the U.S. Attorney’s Office 17 in this case. Do you have any recollection of that being a 18 concern that was laid before you? 19 A I don’t — again, I don’t recall the early — that 20 briefing. I’ve reviewed this e-mail, and — and I can — you 21 know, I take it it would have been natural for me to say, 22 should we approach the state attorney, because we had lots of 23 ongoing matters with the state attorney, and it seems that 24 said no for fear it’ll be leaked straight to Epstein, 25 and I assumed I’d let it be at that point.¶

Page 37 1 Q And do you know — oh, do you know what he meant by 2 it being leaked to Epstein by the state — by Barry — Barry 3 Krischer, the then State Attorney? 4 A So — so, based on the context — 5 Q Mm-hmm. 6 A — what I would assume is that if the state 7 attorney is cutting this kind of deal, and it appears that 8 things have already leaked, because you know, there’s clearly 9 and article here with leaked — you know, so, something has 10 already leaked. 11 Q You’re referring to Exhibit 1? 12 A Exhibit 1. Other things would leak. 13 Q Had you ever met Barry Krischer? 14 A Sure. 15 Q What was your relationship with him? 16 A So, there were multiple state attorneys within the 17 district. He was — it was a professional relationship. We, 18 you know — 19 Q It was an elected position, correct? 20 A It was an elected position. 21 Q And what was your assessment of his aggressiveness 22 as a prosecutor, and his capabilities? 23 A On the public — my — most of my assessment with 24 him was on the public corruption front, where we had brought 25 several cases, and I was a little disappointed that these¶

Page 38 1 were cases he could have brought that he chose not to bring. 2 Q Right. So, is it — can I — am I accurate in 3 inferring from that that you didn’t regard him as a 4 particularly hard charging prosecutor? 5 A So, I — with any state attorney, I hesitate to 6 sort of paint broad brush strokes. I don’t think that’s 7 always fair, but my experience had been in the public 8 corruption space. 9 Q Yeah. 10 A And in that space, I did not think — whether it 11 was him, or whether it was his office, I can’t speak, but I 12 did not think they had done as much as they could have done. 13 Q Is there any area in which you thought he and his 14 office did pursue aggressively? 15 A So, as I recall, we had had — we had emphasized 16 gun crimes quite a bit, and really had had a lot of success 17 moving — moving the ball in the gun crimes space in Palm 18 Beach. 19 Q What — 20 A But let me — let me just say, it’s also very 21 difficult to reconstruct time frames. 22 Q MM-hmm. 23 A And so, I hesitate, because I don’t know if that 24 was 2006 or 2007, or — but you asked in another area, and — 25 Q In this Exhibit 1, you ask whether it’s¶

Page 39 1 appropriate — appropriate to approach Barry Krischer and 2 give him a heads up as to where the U.S. Attorney’s Office 3 might go, presumably — 4 A Right. 5 Q — with this case? 6 A Correct. 7 Q Why would you want to extend that difference to 8 him? Why would it matter? 9 A A colleague in law enforcement. I thought it was 10 important for the office to work with — with state attorneys 11 as a general matter, and I found that the office worked best 12 when it had good working relationships with state attorneys 13 and with — you know, with — for that matter, the agency 14 SACs and others, and — 15 Q Right. 16 A — but again, you know, rather than my asserting, 17 I’m asking , and was saying no, and I don’t know 18 what the ultimate outcome was, but I would guess that we’d 19 just defer and let it be. 20 Q Turning to Exhibit 2, this is an e-mail that was 21 forwarded to you by 22 mail is from , the original forwarded ecopying , and it 23 essentially relates to a dust up between and 24 over chain of command, and her workload, but 25 in the first paragraph, she specifies that, “When I first¶

Page 40 1 heard about the Epstein investigation, I spoke with 2 about it. was not here.” 3 said that she would back me up on the case, 4 but I knew what has happened to the state prosecution can 5 happen to the federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney’s 6 Office isn’t on board. So, I spoke with about the case, 7 and he spoke with Alex, and they gave the green light.” 8 So, that — that actually appears to be an initial 9 contact with that she’s talking about prior to the 10 briefing of you, so, way early when the case first came in in 11 May of 2006. Do you recall being contacted or having a 12 conversation with — 13 A Mm-hmm. 14 - - about that case so early? 15 A Again, the early recollection, whenever — whenever 16 it might have taken place, was I was made aware of the 17 matter. It seemed a reasonable matter to pursue, and that’s 18 the level of detail that I recall. 19 Q So, if said back in the day that she got from 20 you all the green light, what did you understand her to be 21 being authorized to do — authorize may be too strong a word, 22 but — 23 A So, to pursue — to investigate — to pursue — 24 Q Yeah. 25 A — to someone, you know, I — I’m speculating here,¶

Page 41 1 but there’s a case, and they want to know, should we spend 2 our time on this? And the answer is it seems reasonable. 3 Sure. 4 Q Okay, and do you — do you recall making that 5 explicit to her? 6 A I — I don’t, and — and it wouldn’t have been my 7 practice to — to sort of make it explicit to — yeah, go 8 spend your time, as opposed to, thank you for letting me 9 know, that sounds reasonable. 10 Q All right. 11 A And whatever, you know, details it looks like based 12 on Exhibit 1, there was subsequent follow up between her and 13 , or with her and the management team, and they said, you 14 know, go back, work on A, B, and C. 15 Q Do you know what was talking about 16 when she referred to something happening to a federal 17 prosecution if the U.S. Attorney is not on board? Had there 18 been a case in which you were not supportive of a particular 19 prosecution that was being proposed? 20 A None — none that I recall, and — and I knew that 21 what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a 22 federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney’s not on board. I 23 don’t recall any federal prosecution that I wasn’t supportive 24 of, at least in — in this context. 25 Q What do you mean by this context?¶

Page 42 1 A It was my way of narrowing an answer so I didn’t 2 spend the time to go through every office and every division. 3 For the most part, as I sit here, I’m sort of running through 4 each office. I don’t recall any, and — and if I could, 5 based on this — on Exhibit 2, I’m not sure that she’s 6 referring to a specific case as opposed to concerns that the 7 state prosecution started at point — you know, with charges 8 that required jail time and ended up somewhere else, and it 9 may have been because management — 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q All right. A — wasn’t. Q But that’s — that’s a current — a reading of — A Yeah. Q — this, rather — A That — that’s my — Q — than a recollection? A — that’s my reading, not — Q All right. Based on the early description you got 19 of the case — 20 A Right. 21 Q — did you have any idea how many victims were 22 involved? 23 A I did not. 24 Q Did you know what the name of the case was? What 25 the investigation’s name was? You know, cases get names.¶

Page 43 1 A So, I know that based on review of the 2 correspondence, I may have known that then. I did not 3 independently recall that. 4 5 6 7 Q That being Operation Leap Year? A Correct. Q All right, and do you know where that comes from? A I have — well, I mean, other than February 20 — 8 yeah, I don’t know. 9 Q Well, the original allegations that came in 10 involved 28 victims, and then subsequently 11 she was uncovering more victims, so there were — 12 A Yeah. advised that 13 Q — over 30 victims. 14 A 15 Q Well over 30. 16 A I did not know that. 17 Q All right. You did not — you — as you sit here 18 today, you didn’t know it? 19 A I don’t recall knowing that. 20 Q But is it — is it reasonable that the number of 21 victims would be one of the factors that you would have been 22 informed of at the time? 23 A I — I don’t know. I — it all depends how 24 detailed that briefing was. Again, as a typical matter early 25 on, this is what is being done. I would trust my AUSAs and¶

1 my management staff —¶

2 Q Right.¶

3 A — to pursue it. It wouldn’t be a, here are all 4 the facts associated with this case, just heads up. There is 5 a high profile case involving a very wealthy man abusing 6 young women, a state attorney is prosecuting, but you know, 7 there’s dissatisfaction. I wanted to give you a heads up, 8 both to inform me, but also so that I’m aware in my 9 interactions with — with other Palm Beach officials. 10 Q Okay. Based on whatever information you got at the 11 time, did you think that there was a federal interest to be 12 served by pursuing a federal prosecution potentially? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 glossary convention — 22 A Right. 23 Q — that we are using is — and we can use in this A Yes. Q And what was that? A So, the exploitation of young women. Q Girls. A Girls. Q I want to be — I want to be — A Minors. Minor females. Q All right. I — you know, for a — for a sort of a 24 interview, is girls — 25 A Right.¶

Page 45 1 Q — for the victims who at the time of the conduct 2 were minors, and women, for those who were not, even though 3 the girls at a later time became age of — 4 A Fair. 5 Q — majority. 6 A Fair. 7 Q Okay. So, here, we’re really talking about the 8 girls — 9 A Okay. 10 Q — who were victims. 11 A Yeah, yeah. 12 Q Okay. 13 A Girls, minor females. I just don’t sometimes 14 that term is viewed differently. And so — 15 Q Right. 16 A Yeah, so the exploitation of girls or minor 17 females, and that certainly is an important federal interest. 18 Q Well, and is the number and the breadth of the 19 scheme — the scope of the activity also a factor there? In 20 other words, it wasn’t one or two on one or two occasions. 21 A So, there’s several factors that probably go into 22 what’s the federal interest. The acts, the sordidness of the 23 acts, the — the number, the likelihood or the importance of 24 registration was important to my mind because that — that 25 goes to future prevention to putting the community on notice.¶

Page 46 1 Q And were you aware that the individual in this 2 case, Epstein, also had homes in other districts, and that 3 there were — it was an interstate activity on his part, the 4 interstate travel and so on? 5 A 6 MR. HERRON: I’m sorry, let me just — we’re still 7 in the original intake time frame — 8 MS. : Yes. 9 MR. HERRON: — here? 10 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Again, for the intake time, I 11 can’t I can’t speak to the details, because I don’t 12 remember what the extent of that — that intake briefing. 13 BY MS. 14 Q But as i — as I — as i — 15 A Could I — could I ask — 16 Q Yes. 17 A — a question? Was there — was there a clear 18 briefing as opposed to a heads up based on the record? 19 Q Yes. That came to Miami to conduct 20 a briefing of you and — 21 A Okay. 22 Q in order to tell you about this 23 case, and get from you 24 A Okay. 25 Q — a green light —¶

Page 47 1 A 2 3 Q — to proceed with it. A I ask, because I recall an e-mail, and I don’t know 4 what the time would have been, where she’s coming to Miami, 5 and says, why don’t you stop by my office first? 6 Q Right. 7 A And — and — and I keep — I would — I would 8 speculate that, why don’t you stop by my office first is, why 9 don’t you give me a bunch of details, and then we will walk 10 across to the U.S. Attorney — 11 Q Right. 12 A — and fill him in, and so that would have been 13 almost a two-tiered discussion. 14 Q And is that — 15 A And I don’t know if that — if that — the timeline 16 on that e-mail is when you say briefing. 17 Q Well, we are — we are asking — 18 A 19 Q What it — what it would — 20 A Yeah. 21 22 A I’m speaking just based on review of the record, 23 not based on recollection here. 24 Q All right. So, you have — to be clear, you have 25 no recollection of any specific briefing in 2006?¶

1 2 3 Page 48 A I accept that I was made aware of the matter. Q Okay. A I can’t say how or in what context or to what 4 degree of detail. 5 6 Q Or by whom? A Or by whom. I knew the matter — it’s easier to 7 recollect at least for me what I knew as opposed to who told 8 me what. 9 Q All right. All right. At this point, would you 10 have had — did you have — if you — at any point, did you 11 have any reservation about investigating and potentially 12 prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein, a reservation stemming from his 13 wealth, and reported standing in the community at all, and 14 influence? 15 A No, and we had prosecuted lots of influential folks 16 in the office. So, while he had wealth, it’s not unusual — 17 UBS was in the office at the time. I mentioned several high 18 profile Palm Beach public corruption cases. 19 Q So, there was no concern about possible negative 20 blowback in the press or the community or even at Main 21 Justice if you went after someone like Jeffrey Epstein? 22 A There was no concern stemming from his wealth or 23 his status. 24 Q What would it have stemmed from? 25 A At some point, I think there was concerns regarding 1 the — the law, and we’ll probably get into that. I alluded 2 to that earlier in the overview. I don’t know if that would 3 have been developed this early on, but — but that’s not a 4 function of his wealth. That’s a function of the fact 5 pattern.¶

6 Q Right. Right. Okay. So, as you mentioned petite 7 policy concerns, petite policy, petite policy, could you tell 8 us what your position was on the — on the policy as it 9 applied in this case as you understood it from — in the 10 beginning?¶

11 A So — so, the policy, you know, on its face, 12 doesn’t specifically apply. Based on Exhibit 1, I’m now 13 inferring, not recalling, it looks like either on her 14 own, or asked for a — or, Mr. , asked for a 15 petite policy waiver memo to be prepared, in part on the 16 assumption that the state prosecution may or may not have 17 gone for it.¶

18 I don’t know, but I know — I do recall that early 19 on, this was unusual, because it had been — he had been 20 arrested or arraigned. It was going forward on the part of 21 the state, and so here is the big bad federal government 22 stepping on a sovereign, you know, state, saying you’re not 23 doing enough, and to my mind, when, you know, the whole idea 24 of the petite policy is to recognize that that estate has — 25 you know, is an independent entity, and that we should¶

Page 49¶

Page 50 1 presume that what they’re doing is correct, even if we don’t 2 like the outcome, except in the most unusual of 3 circumstances. 4 Q And what kinds of — well, so, the petite policy 5 exists because there’s a recognition that there are cases 6 that are appropriately pursued. I mean, you were the head of 7 the civil rights division, after all. 8 A Correct, which is why I say except in the most 9 appropriate of circumstances. 10 Q Right. 11 A But let me add that based on this, I was 12 comfortable, you know, saying, let’s go forward, because the 13 lack of jail time, you know, to use — to use petite policy 14 language, a plea that did not include jail time or 15 registration would seem like a manifest injustice. 16 Q All right. So, did you have any doubt that you’d 17 get a waiver if you applied for one? 18 A I’m not — so — so, I’m now speculating. I don’t 19 recall, but I’m not sure I would have said, is there a doubt 20 that I’d get a waiver as opposed to, is this something I feel 21 comfortable doing, or not? And — 22 Q And this being the prosecution, or this being 23 the — applying for a waiver? 24 A Applying for a waiver. And so, you know, either 25 main justice gives it or doesn’t give it. That doesn’t mean¶

Page 51 1 you don’t apply for it if you think it’s the right thing to 2 do. 3 So, for example, in the UBS case, which was one of 4 our big tax, you know, prosecutions, we asked for a Bank of 5 Nova Scotia — 6 Q ME-hum. 7 A — authorization to the Bank of Nova Scotia 8 subpoena, and I didn’t think Main Justice would — you know, 9 I pushed really hard, and I got into the weeds in that case for that purpose, but I still thought, let’s go for it, and we did, and Main Justice didn’t give in to it, and that’s 12 okay. That’s how it works. 13 Q Okay. So, they denied that request? 14 A They denied that request, and I say that as an 15 example of — as a typical matter, I don’t think what’s main 16 justice going to say, as opposed to how do we how should 17 we approach this matter? 18 Q I don’t understand about what you mean by, how 19 should we approach this matter. 20 A So, honestly, how do I — how do I explain this? 21 So, I think there’s a difference in saying, let me predict 22 how main justice will come out, and follow that prediction, 23 versus, folks, what do you all think? Okay. If we’re 24 comfortable with this, let’s write it up, and let’s see what 25 Main Justice does.¶

EFTA00009279¶

Page 52 1 One is trying to predict what folks in this 2 building are going to think. Another one is trying to 3 predict — another one is saying, what do we in Miami think, 4 and then let main justice figure it out. Q And which is the approach you typically took? 6 A And my point is the approach that I typically took 7 is, what do we think, and let main justice give it a thumbs 8 up or a thumbs down. 9 Q All right, and in this case, did you do that with 10 regard to the petite policy? 11 A So, in this case, we didn’t get that far in that we 12 didn’t have to submit to DOJ. 13 Q MM-hmm. 14 A But — but we were approaching it not based on what 15 main justice was going to think, but what do we feel is the 16 right outcome in this office. 17 Q So, as I understand, the bottom line is that you 18 didn’t as I hear you, I believe you’re saying that you 19 didn’t stand down, or in any way cease or limit pursuing this 20 case on petite policy grounds. You pursued it as you — as 21 you would — 22 A So, we went forward with the matter, although there 23 were petite policy concerns in the background. So — so 24 you’re setting this up as a binary — as a — did — was it a 25 fact — as a binary, you did not limit yourself on petite¶

Page 53 1 policy grounds, and I’m pushing back a little bit, because I 2 don’t think it’s, it’s part or it’s not, as opposed to when 3 you look at a case, there are all sorts of factors, and it is 4 a factor in how you think of a matter going forward. BY MS. Q If you had those petite policy concerns — you or members of your staff? 8 A I would say a combination of me and my management 9 staff. 11 3 14 BY MS. Q Who? Who? A I can’t — I can’t recreate — Q But who are you dealing with on this case? A Primarily, it would be my first assistant and 15 criminal chief as I typically — so, there is, you know, to 16 sort of put it in main justice terms, you know, a line 17 attorney has a deputy section chief and a section chief and a 18 DAG and an AAG, and the AAG usually deals with the section 19 chief, or the DAG. And so, I was dealing with my first 20 assistant and my crim chief. 21 Q Right, and they were there in Miami. 22 A And they were there in Miami. 23 Q And by the way, first line 24 supervisor was 25 A rect.¶

Page 54 1 Q Do you know why she was not actively participating 2 in this chain of command? 3 A I noticed that in the correspondence, and I 4 couldn’t speak to that. 5 Q All right. 6 A But the — but it goes to the point that if you look at the — she reported to , who reported to 8 who reported to who reported to . And so, as a 9 typical matter, I tried to empower my first assistant and my 10 criminal chief and my office heads and work through them, not 11 bypass them. 12 Q In this particular case with regard either to the 13 petite policy — 14 A Right. 15 Q — or any other aspect, was there anyone other than 16 that group of five, if you will, in that chain — 17 A Correct. 18 Q — from you down to through 19 20 A Right. 21 Q — and that you were dealing with? 22 A I can’t recall. I — I can — I can say as a 23 general matter, it would not be unusual for me to walk 24 down — walk down the hall and talk to someone that I trust 25 and say, hey, I’ve got this fact pattern. What do you think?¶

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

Page 56 1 confusing to begin with — notifies .= that — of a — of 2 a particular conversation he had with one of the defense 3 attorneys. At this point, what I want to do is draw your 4 attention to the — the comment, and his response, and we’re 5 looking at page — 6 A Page — 7 Q — three. 8 A — page three. 9 Q So, in the third paragraph — 10 A Yeah. 11 Q — “it was made clear to you by the U.S. Attorney 12 and the first assistant from the time when you were first 13 authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had 14 concerns about taking the case because of petite policy and a 15 number of legal issues.” And then later he says that, “You 16 were never given authorization by anyone to seek an 17 indictment in this case.” 18 And — close quote — and then on the first page, 19 presents her version of that original contact 20 with you, meeting with you, at the bottom of the page. 21 Halfway through the last paragraph, she says, “My 22 recollection of the original meeting with Alex and is 23 quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I 24 summarized the case and the state attorney’s office handling 25 of it.”¶

1 Page 57 acknowledged that we needed to do work to 2 collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I 3 noted the time and month,” — that — I’m sorry, “I noted the 4 time and money that would be required for an investigation. 5 I said I was willing to invest time and the FBI was willing 6 to invest the money, but I didn’t want to get to the end of 7 it,” — “to the end, and then have the office be intimidated 8 by the high powered lawyers. I was assured that would not 9 happen.” Can you tell us which version of that initial — 10 which version — 11 12 13 A Right. Q — is correct? A So, again, I don’t remember that initial briefing, 14 so I can’t tell you which version is correct. I would also 15 say that it’s possible neither version is correct and that 16 there’s a little bit of truth — now I’m just speculating — 17 Q All right. 18 A that there’s a little bit of truth in either 19 one, because it’s certainly possible to say, I hear you, 20 righteous case, go forward and investigate, work on the 21 federal nexus, which is what Exhibit 3 is saying, go work on 22 the federal nexus and find evidence for the federal nexus. 23 But we have concerns about petite policy and legal matters, 24 so there’s a lot of work to be done. 25 Q So, what kind of a direction does that amount to¶

Page 58 1 for the line AUSA? What’s her job then? 2 A So, the job would then be to go back and 3 investigate, and develop facts and report back. 4 Q And if she developed enough facts, and supportive 5 law to present proposed prosecution? 6 7 8 A Right. Q Okay. A And so — so, a lot of times in this he said, she 9 said, there’s a little bit of truth to both sides of the 10 discussion. I’m just — I’m just saying as a general matter, 11 I wouldn’t — your questions are sometimes either or, and 12 sometimes — 13 Q Right. 14 A — it can be a combination of both. 15 Q All right, and — but in fact you don’t recall? 16 A But I’m speculating. 17 Q All right. Is there anything in either of those 18 that two accounts — two versions that you say didn’t happen, 19 couldn’t happen? 20 A I can’t, because I don’t recall it. I can’t — 21 Q Okay. 22 A — speak to that. I would speculate that there’s 23 probably a little bit of truth on both sides that — and if 24 you read it closely, you’ll see that acknowledges the 25 need to work on a federal nexus. So, that goes to, you know,¶

Page 59 1 where or, Mr. la I’m sorry, I’m calling — I’m 2 using first names. 3 Q Its’ all right. 4 A So, I’m going to just start — 4 This is an informal interview. 6 A I’m going to just start using first names. I don’t 7 mean that disrespectfully — where, you know, Illlisays, you 8 know, because of petite policy and legal issues, and is 9 acknowledging the legal issues, because she’s saying needed 10 work to do to collect evidence establishing the federal 11 nexus. 12 Q All right. 13 A So — 14 Q Yeah. 15 A So, they’re not as inconsistent as presented 16 Q All right. 17 A — arguably. 18 Q Sack in 2006, in this Exhibit No. 1, 19 tells you in his e-mail that the indictment target date is 20 August 25, 2006. 21 A Mm-hmm. 22 Q In other words, very shortly — 23 A Right. 24 Q — thereafter, within a month or so. Do you know 25 why the line AUSA, , was keen on getting the¶

federal case against Epstein brought on a fairly — on a 2 quick basis? 3 A So, I can’t speak to that, and — and can I 4 I ask, based on your record, was that that the — was that 5 the state indictment target date, or was that — 6 Q He already — A — a federal — B Q — Epstein had already been indicted and arraigned on the — 10 A Right. 11 Q — indictment, so that’s the federal. 12 A So — so, that’s — 1: Q That’s talking about a federal indictment. 14 A All right. 15 Q The point — 16 A Correct. 17 Q — is that early on — 18 A Right. 19 Q — the investigative team, the FBI — 20 A Right. 21 Q — and were hot to trot to get 22 this — 23 A Right. 24 Q — case moving from a federal standpoint. That may 25 well have been quite unrealistic given —¶

Page 61 1 A Correct. 2 Q — all of the issues that we’ve been discussing, 3 but the question is, do you know why there was some urgency? 4 A I haven’t the slightest idea. When was it — when 5 was it initially brought to the office? 6 Q It was brought to the office in May of — 7 A Right. 8 Q — 2006. 9 A That — that would be a really, really fast 10 timeline. 11 Q Right. So, the question is, aspirational though it 12 may have been, there was a hope — 13 A 14 Q — to get it done quickly. 15 A Right. 16 Q So, the question is, can you think of factors that 17 would have led a prosecutor to want to pursue — 18 A I — 19 Q — this quickly? 20 A I don’t recall. I can speculate that was 21 very hard charging and wanted to do a lot, and — 22 Q Was that your experience of her? 23 A So, based on this, I see, you know, so, Exhibit 2 24 is, you know 25 Q Excuse me, would — but just from your memory, is¶

Page 62 1 that your recollection of hove operated? Hard charging? 2 A Yeah. I’d say — so, a lot of really good 3 prosecutors are hard charging. That’s — 4 Q All right. 5 A — that’s part of the job description. 6 Q Okay. 7 A And so, yes. 8 Q Okay. Did — so, in the child sex offender 9 context, are you familiar with a — the belief on the part of 10 people who do that kind of case, as did and 11 others in your office — that those offenders typically don’t 12 stop offending, even after somebody’s onto them? So that 13 there was a concern that he — that in this case, Jeffrey 14 Epstein might be continuing to offend, and therefore getting 15 him off the streets was — 16 A Right. 17 Q — a priority? 18 A I have heard that discussed recently in the media. 19 I don’t recollect that back in — part of a discussion back 20 in 2006. 21 Q All right. Okay. Do you recall that 22 — and this is just a, do you recall — 23 A Mm-hmm. 24 Q — that she periodically would give you in that 25 early period of 2006, updates — written updates?¶

Page 63 A I don’t. Q Did you think that it was appropriate for a line AUSA to be shooting e-mails updating on a case that was under investigation directly to you and your first assistant? A It was unusual, and — and so, so, did I think of a — look, I can’t reconstruct what I would have thought, but you know, you’re asking not just what did I know, but what would I have thought 12 years ago. But I can say that based on general practice, it would have been unusual, and my best guess as to how I would have reacted would have been, hey, , this is unusual, is the chain being fully informed? Are feathers being — Q Right. A ruffled? Figure it out, because, you know, you asked me early on to characterize qualities. I think one of the things that I said was he was very good at smoothing things — Q MW-hmm. A — over. And sort of the interaction, because he was respected, and so ^Imight say, that’s kind of unusual. Go figure it out. Q But you wouldn’t necessarily jump that chain yourself, and be — A Q — in direct communication?¶

EFTA00009291¶

Page 64¶

1 A I tended not to — 2 Q Okay. 3 A — do that. 4 BY 5 Q Would she have sent this to you — something 6 unusual, if she thought that this was a case that you wanted 7 to be involved in? 8 A Even in — even in those, I tried to be, as a 9 general matter, fairly sensitive to the chain, because I had 10 found that if you start jumping the chain too much, even if 11 you become informed, managers feel, you know, out of — out 12 of the loop, and that’s not — that’s not conducive to sort 13 of allowing them to do their job of supervising. It’s a big 14 enough office, you have to empower your folks to do their 15 jobs. 16 Q So the concern on your part would not be that she 17 was communicating directly to you, but that as long as all of 18 the chain was informed as well? 19 A Yeah. I mean, if you’re — if you’re 20 or you know, if you’re , or you know, don’t you want to 21 talk to the line attorney before the line attorney talks to 22 your boss? 23 And so, it’s not just informed, but it’s respecting 24 your supervisor. And it’s a difficult balance, because often 25 really good AUSAs are also the ones that, you know, just want¶

Page 65 1 to get things done. 2 BY MS. 3 Q Did you have any reason to believe during this 4 investigative phase that ME was not pursuing 5 this case — this investigation adequately, appropriately, 6 and fully? 7 A No, I did not. 8 Q Did you — 9 A Not to my recollection. 10 Q Did you feel that she did not have appropriate 11 oversight? 12 A Not to my recollection. 13 Q Okay. Do you — did you feel that she had any 14 resource problem? That is, did she have, as far as you knew, 15 sufficient resources available to pursue her investigation? 16 A To my recollection, yes, I noted her early — you 17 know, I noted more recently the e-mail where — you know, 18 that was shared with me by about resource concerns, and 19 I would just note that I would allow the management chain to 20 figure that out. 21 Q All right. Were you — did you at any point 22 consider, based on what you then knew, expanding the scope of 23 the investigation? Did you ever suggest or propose that 24 instead of simply looking at Epstein’s conduct in West Palm 25 Beach vis a vis these girls, that the federal authorities¶

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

Page 67 A Right. Q — should proceed? A So, I don’t have a specific recollection of who reached out at what time. I would assume as a general matter that defense counsel — defense counsel were clearly involved before the case came to the office. and so, I would assume that defense counsel would remain involved while the office was investigating. ^Isay that not based on independent recollection, but — Q Right. ^A— why would they stop being involved? ^QAnd is it in your experience as a U.S. Attorney, was it common or uncommon for defense counsel to approach the line prosecutor and supervisor to make whatever pitch they want with respect to a prosecution? A Fairly common. Q All right, and was it also common for those approaches to be entertained? In other words, for the line AUSA and supervisor — A Right. Q — to meet with defense counsel? A As a — as a general matter, yeah. Q And did you view that as appropriate? A As a general matter, it was typical. It happened before I got there, and is probably happening now.¶

Page 68 1 Q And you view it as an appropriate part of the 2 process? Do you? 3 A I think AUSAs need to have discretion to meet with 4 defense counsel, and defense counsel certainly should be able 5 to present perspectives. 6 Q There is an outlook — this is Exhibit 4, and this 7 is something — 8 Okay. 9 Q — it’s really sort of a point of information here. 10 This is an outlook that shows you and and had 11 a scheduled meeting with Roy Black. 12 A Mm-hmm. 13 Q Roy Black, a prominent — 14 A Right. 15 Q — local criminal defense attorney at the time in 16 the Miami area. This was a meeting scheduled in your office 17 for the 23rd of February of 2007. Do you have any — he was 18 a — he at the time — 19 A Right. 20 Q — was one of Epstein’s attorneys. Do you have any 21 idea whether this meeting related to Epstein or some other 22 case? 23 A I don’t. I noticed that and I don’t know whether 24 it was this or another matter. 25 Q But you have not particular recollection of meeting¶

Page 69 with him on the Epstein matter — A I don’t. Q — at this time? Okay. So, I want to — A And let me note, I think most of the correspondence was from other attorneys and not him. And so, yeah. Q All right. Are you — are you okay? Do you want to take a short break, or — broken at 11:00. Mr. Acosta, we’re going to move to that time frame I mentioned a moment ago, May of 2007 when submitted her prosecution memo of more than ⁸⁰ pages, and her proposed indictment — her initial proposed indictment, which was more than 50 pages. She submitted that by transmittal memo to her entire chain, A Yeah. Q Do you — ^ALet’s — what time is it? Oh, 11:00. Q Five minutes? A Yeah. Q Five minutes? ^AYeah. Let’s take a five minute break. Q Off the record. (Off the record.) BY MS. ^QAll right, back on the record at 11:12, having¶

Page 70 1 , and you. Was that a typical way for an indictment 2 and proposed prosecution? The memo to come? 3 A To my recollection, it was not, and I don’t recall 4 that happening in other cases. I’m trying — I’m hesitating, 5 just because I’m trying to think through if there’s — I 6 don’t have any recollection of it happening in another case. 7 Q Why do you think it happened in this case? And who 8 caused it to happen? 9 A I don’t know, and I don’t know. 10 Q All right. All right. So, you when you 11 before you saw it — I don’t know if you even knew about 12 it — you — by reference to Exhibit 6, you learned 13 essentially from that the FBI was planning to do 14 a press conference two weeks after that, and told 15 this office has not approved the indictment, 16 therefore, “please do not commit us to anything at this 17 time.” Were you — and eventually that e-mail chain — 18 A Right. 19 Q — gets to you, apparently by blind carbon, because 20 there’s no indication you actually get it. 21 A Right. 22 Q But you advise Alicia Valle, who I think was your 23 press person — 24 A Correct. 25 Q — that, ’ hasn’t even finished her¶

Page 71 1 recommendation i.e., we are a long way off.” So, 2 did you have any idea why the FBI was planning a press 3 conference on Epstein? 4 A I don’t — I don’t know if I did. I don’t recall 5 if I did. 6 Q Was it — how typical was it for the FBI to plan a 7 press conference on an indicted — on a case that was being 8 indicted at the time of an indictment or arrest without 9 coordinating that with you and your office? 10 A Under highly atypical. 11 Q He was the SAC at the time? 12 A He was the SAC — he was the SAC — I know he was 13 the SAC at the time as of September, and I’m almost certain 14 he was the SAC at the time. 15 Q All right. And when you said that we are a long 16 way off, and hasn’t even finished her recommendation to 17 , can — do you know whether you had any idea that she 18 had actually submitted her pros memo, and that she had made a 19 recommendation to 20 A I can’t — I can’t recollect — 21 Q Okay. 22 A — but I’ll take my words as reflective of, if I 23 say she hasn’t finished her recommendation, then I assume she 24 hasn’t finished her recommendation, but I don’t recall — 25 Q Does that mean —¶

Page 72 1 A — that level of detail. 2 Q — as you — as you look at your own words, does 3 that suggest to you that you were unaware as of that moment 4 that she’d actually submitted her pros memo? 5 A That suggests that I would not have been aware that 6 she submitted it. If — you know, because it sounds like I’m 7 saying she hasn’t even submitted her memo to So — 8 Q All right. 9 A — we’re a long way off. 10 Q All right, so, is — 11 A But again, this is based on practice, not 12 recollection. 13 Q All right, and when you said we are a long way off, 14 did that reflect, if you recall, an assessment of the length 15 of time to get to a pros — 16 A Right. 17 Q — memo, a recommendation, and an assessment of 18 that, or your expectation that even when you saw a pros memo 19 and an indictment, it would be a long process before it was 20 approved? 21 A So, I would assume — and again, this is just based 22 on speculating from the way that I write, that I’m thinking 23 she hasn’t submitted her recommendation to needs 24 to review it. 25 He may — you know, he’d probably want to talk to¶

Page 73 1 . It needs to be scrubbed. You know, this could be — 2 this ain’t happening next week. 3 Q All right, but in your — do you have any reason to 4 believe that whatever that process is that you were 5 describing would be any — any different in any particular 6 measure in this case from the ordinary complex case? 7 A So, from my language, I would take that it’s the 8 same process, but that there is a process, and the process 9 hasn’t yet been followed. 10 Q All right. Okay. 11 A So, it would be the typical process in a typical 12 complex case. 13 Q All right, and is it fair to characterize this as a 14 relatively complex case, given the legal issues? 15 A I think it is, yes. 16 Q Okay. In Exhibit 8, you actually got the in 17 Exhibit 7, you see that in the bottom part of that that you 18 received a copy of the pros memo on the second page of that 19 exhibit at the top. 20 A Right. 21 is forwarding to you the pros memo. 22 A Right. 23 Q In Exhibit 8, you see that is 24 forwarding or sending to that chain, excluding 25 , that is, and you, additional¶

Page 74 1 items in Operation Leap Year, and that’s a summary of the 2 indictment, and evidence regarding the individual victims. 3 Okay? So, as of May 11, you had before you the pros memo, 4 the proposed indictment, and this substantial amount of 5 additional — 6 A Right. 7 Q — information. Did you read the pros memo? 8 A Right. So, I don’t recall — and I know you’re 9 going to say, why don’t I, but this was a long time ago. I 10 don’t recall if I read it, or if I went back to the office 11 and sat down with and and went over it. I can’t 12 recall from this far. I can say that it looks based on this 13 that I was at the U.S. Attorney’s conference. 14 Q Mm-hmm, 15 A The idea of printing this out on a hotel printer, I 16 wouldn’t — I can’t believe I would have printed this out on 17 a hotel printer. 18 Q Let alone read it on an airplane, correct? 19 A Let alone read it on an airplane. That just 20 wouldn’t — 21 Q Right. 22 A — have been my practice. 23 Q But going back — arriving back — 24 A Right. 25 Q — to your office, was it your practice to take¶

Page 75 1 voluminous documents like this and go through them yourself, 2 or did you rely on your senior staff? 3 A I would typically rely on senior staff. They — 4 they’re the experienced ones that have seen these matters 5 before. They would go through it. We’d sit down. We’d talk 6 about the issues. We might have it in front of us, almost 7 like you’ve got all those Q Okay. 9 A — binders there, but you know, you’re calling my 10 attention to particular issues, and we’d sort of talk it 11 through. 12 Q And do you recall doing that in this case? 13 A I recall having discussions with senior staff about 14 this case. 15 Q Who? 16 A Certainly and at various points, and 17 I can’t say that I did that in May versus April versus June. 18 I can’t give you 19 Q All right. 20 A — timelines. 21 Q Well, we’re talking now about May. 22 A Right. 23 Q Because you’ve got the actual — 24 A Yeah. 25 Q — process.¶

Page 76 1 A It would have been my practice based on this to go 2 back and discuss it, and so based on my practiced, I would 3 have gone back and likely discussed it. I doubt I would have 4 printed this out at whatever hotel I was at. 5 Q But even when you got back to the office, would you 6 have had somebody print it out so you would’ve had it 7 available? 8 A I may have had someone print it out so it’s 9 available. I may have focused on particular parts of it. 10 Q What kinds of issues would you have focused on? In 11 other words — in other words, some might go straight to the 12 facts. 13 A Right. 14 Q Some might be interested in the legal theories. 15 What was — what was your approach? 16 A So, I think that depended on the case. 17 Q Okay. 18 A Here, you had legal questions, and you also had — 19 had witness issues, and I would think those would have been 20 the two primary areas. 21 Q Would you have gone through the indictment and the 22 pros memo and all of those other materials, or just relied on 23 your experience seeing your people, and 24 A As a general practice, probably some combination. 25 As a general — a general recollection, the concerns in this¶

Page 77 1 case weren’t about the sordid details of what happened, 2 because we believed he did what he did. The concerns were 3 about some of the legal issues around it, and some of the 4 issues in terms of testimony. 5 Q Of the victims? 6 A Of the victims. 7 Q All right. On page — 8 A And I say that because that would have been what I 9 would naturally focus on as opposed to reading the sordid 10 details, because I think everyone believed the victims. 11 Q All right. Exhibit 9 is an e-mail that you are not 12 on, but that — notes that is advising that 13 you, , “Has your memo and Lefcourt’s letter.” Gerald 14 Lefcourt was — 15 A Mm-hmm. 16 Q — a New York attorney who was one of the members 17 of the Epstein defense team. Did you know him? 18 A I did not. 19 Q Did you ever encounter him as far as you recall? 20 A I did not. 21 Q All right. He had, according to the documents we 22 have, made two substantial submissions to and 23 in — 24 A Right. 25 Q — February of that year in an effort to dissuade¶

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

Page 79 1 Q And was there any particular — if We EMI was 2 working with you directly on reporting 3 A Right. 4 Q — on his assessment of this case, was there any 5 reason for Mi to be involved? 6 A I might bounce ideas off him. I mean, he was he 7 was right across, so we worked closely, but you know, 8 was the criminal chief, and if he was in the weeds, , I 9 would speculate would sort of, much like me, defer to his 10 judgement, because they’ve known each other, and they’ve 11 worked together, and they had a good working relationship. 12 Q And is it — do we understand correctly that as 13 first tant, had a brief that really encompassed 14 the entire office? 15 A He did. 16 Q All right. 17 A He — so, he supervised the civil, the criminal, 18 the appellate, and the forfeiture. 19 Q All right. There is here in this e-mail that you 20 did not see back in the day, Exhibit 9, a pushback from 21 regarding the rush that is in to 22 pursue the case, and he says, “This is obviously a Very 23 significant case, and Alex wants to take his time making sure 24 he is comfortable before proceeding.” Do you — can you tell 25 us what the basis would be for, or was, for that assertion by¶

Page “.7.;. 2 A So, I can’t — well, I can’t tell you from 3 recollection what the basis is. I can — I can speculate 4 that the materials being transmitted Friday morning — oh, I 5 guess it was — yeah, so — 6 Q The 11th. A Yeah. Q Friday. 9 A So, Friday morning, it hasn’t been reviewed by 10 anyone in the management chain, much less approved and 11 edited, and that Monday is saying why don’t I have a 12 decision? 13 And — and so, absent truly extenuating 14 circumstances, typically, you’d have — give — you know, 15 it’d go through the management chain up to the U.S. Attorney. 16 And so, he’s pushing back, saying, hey, it’s been a day, or 17 it’s been a weekend. I’m — 18 Q Right. 19 A — I’m just reading between the lines here. 20 Q Who had authority to sign off on the Epstein 21 prosecution? To, say, indict? 22 A So, as a delegated matter, had 23 signature authority. 24 Q Me -hmm. 25 A As did — as did , as did¶

Page 81 1 obviously I did. As a practice matter, this is something 2 that would have gone through the chain, and that we would 3 have then discussed. 4 Q But why up at your level? Is it because it is, as 5 says, “Obviously a very significant case?” 6 A So, at my level, not only because of the facts, 7 because it’s not about the facts, but I do think that there 8 are legal issues that — that implicated policy, that — that 9 we were thinking through. 0 Q And what were — what were the legal issues, and 11 what were the policy issues? 12 A So — so, the legal issues, and also factual issues 13 in terms of the witnesses. So, the legal issues so, and 14 there’s an e-mail from based on the — you know, the 5 contemporaneous record that alludes to some of this. In my 16 experience at the civil rights division, trafficking cases 17 involved — you know, I can — I can describe some — some ¹ 8 horrific cases of girls being held against their will, you 19 know. 20 You had child pornography matters with young women, 21 sometimes incredibly young, that the office prosecuted. As 22 the trafficking laws were being developed, there was a lot o 23 discussion about, what’s the difference between trafficking 24 and solicitation, and that discussion took place as the 25 trafficking laws were being developed. And so, this¶

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

Page 83 1 issues that — 2 A Issues that — 3 — in your mind 4 A — we would have — 5 Q — had to be resolved. 6 A — wanted to talk through. 7 Q All right. Okay. At that point, did you — to 8 your recollection, have any doubt that some form of 9 indictment or charging instrument against Epstein was likely 10 to be — become viable? 11 A So, I don’t — it was a case that I thought it very 12 important that we do something. How that something played 13 out, I think had all along been a matter of discussion. 14 Q As something other than what the U.S. Attorney’s 15 Office does, which is prosecute? 16 A Well — well, no, I mean, what the U.S. Attorney’s 17 Office does is ensure that justice is served. 18 Q Right. 19 A And whether — and in partnership with state 20 attorneys, and sometimes that means state attorneys take the 21 lead. Sometimes that means the U.S. Attorney’s Office takes 22 the lead, and it — and a lot of times, we actually had, you 23 know, we — we would share staff, because sometimes it made 24 sense for — you know, for one part of the other to take the 25 lead.¶

Page 84 1 So, writ large, I thought throughout it was very 2 important that something happen. There were these concerns 3 all along. I can speculate that this is just a reflection of 4 those continuing concerns. 5 Q As expressed by you to in the ordinary course? 7 A As developed as a group throughout this — I can so, if we go back to — what was the Exhibit? Q June of — June of 2006. A So, Exhibit 3, says, “In that meeting, I summarized the case and the state attorney’s office handling 12 it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect 13 evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time 14 and money that would be required for an investigation.” And 15 so, as far back as that initial meeting, there is the 16 discussion about the federal nexus, and is this a state or a 17 federal — 18 Q Right. 19 A — case? 20 Q All right. Exhibit 7 is an early e-mail from= 21 to you. Early, meaning it proceeds the one — 22 A Correct- . 23 Q — we just looked at, and early in that it’s right 24 as you’re 25 A 5¶

Page 85 1 Q — receiving the pros memo, and you ask him, have 2 you read the memo? And curious why you 3 rather than 4 ask MI A I don’t recall. I can — I can speculate, and I 5 have two thoughts that I’ll speculate. One is, ME her 6 direct supervisor. 7 Q Mm-hmm. 8 9 A And I might be thinking — Q Second line supervisor. 10 A Her second line supervisor, so why is sending 11 me this? , have you read this? I.e., did you jump the 12 chain? Secondly, I think it I may have wanted to have 13 multiple opinions on this. 14 Q Ms-hmm. 15 A It’s most likely that I had talked to 16 already, because and I talked more often, and I’m asking 17 another person in the management chain, hey, what do you 18 think? Let’s have multiple opinions on the table here. 19 Q Well, this is the first time other than that 20 we see you getting a recommendation. 21 A Right. 22 Q When says, he thinks that you should 23 charge him — you, the office, should charge Epstein. He has 24 issues with the charging strategy proposed by but 25 one, he says, “We all need to get on the same page as to¶

Page 86 1 whether the statute’s covered the conduct, and whether the 2 conduct is the type we should charge. I think the answer to 3 both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the 4 statutes.” He proposes that the office start with a 5 complaint, which is not unusual, is it? 6 7 A It — it happens, yes. Q All right, which allows the defendant to be 8 arrested, and ideally detained, and then the defendant is 9 then highly motivated or incentivized — 10 11 12 what A Okay. Q — to work a pre-indictment resolution. That’s is proposing. He also notes that it’s 13 important to — in his view, to “cap him with conspiracy 14 counts to make a plea attractive,” and the court could give 15 us a hard time with that if we had to dismiss indicted 16 counts. 17 A Right. 18 Q Okay. The proposed indictment included one 19 conspiracy — a conspiracy that has a five year 20 A Five year cap. 21 Q — statutory maximum, and this notion is that 22 Epstein be charged with a five-year conspiracy count, and 23 take it from there. Do you know what he was referring to 24 when he noted that a court could give you a hard time in 25 dismissing indicted counts in this case?¶

EFTA00009314¶

Page 87 1 A So — so, as a typical matter, once there’s an 2 indictment, the — a pre-indictment — well, by definition, a 3 pre-indictment resolution comes off the table, but in cases 4 of this nature, the resolutions tend to happen before 5 indictment, because once the indictment is done, at least in 6 South Florida, dismissal of charges — for example, if — you 7 know, if is saying, let’s think about a 371 with a five 8 year cap a rule 11 — 9 Q Mm-hem. 10 A — that’s something that South Florida judges, they 11 tend not to — you know, dismissing a number of counts, and 12 then doing a rule 11 is not something that judges tend to do. 13 Q All right. Two — two pieces to that. One is — 14 A Okay. 15 Q — the issue of dismissing substantive — 16 A Right. 17 Q — counts — substantive counts. Is that — was 18 that a particular concern in this case because of the nature 19 of the conduct represented in the — 20 A So — 21 Q — substantive counts? 22 A — so, so, your question — you asked a general 23 question, and then now you’re moving to a 24 Q Right. 25 A — specific. As a general matter, not just in this¶

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

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

Page 9C 1 there is — there — you can — you can — you can lay out 2 more what you’ve negotiated. I think later there’s a letter 3 from.. that sort of presents the same perspective. 4 Q All right. In — 5 MS. One moment? 6 MS. : Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Yeah. 8 BY MS. a: Q You said in cases of this nature, the resolution 10 happens before indicting. What is the — this cases of this nature? A Higher profile. Higher profile cases. 13 Q So, not necessarily sex offense cases? 14 A Not necessarily sex offense, no, no, no, higher — 15 higher profile cases where — 16 Q And this made — this was a higher profile case 17 because — 18 A This was a — just, a — so, I would say it’s a 19 combination of all of the above, and to my mind, one of 20 the — one of the parts of this case is the legal theories 21 were, if not novel, they were novel within the Southern 22 District of Florida. At least, some of the legal theories, 23 and I — we’ll probably get into that. 24 Q Did his wealth make it a high profile case? 25 A Well, it was clearly in the paper. And so, that¶

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

Page 92 1 little bit on that. 2 Saying what are your thoughts? Have you read it, 3 what are your thoughts? And he says, yes, we can talk next 4 week, my current thoughts are is very different than, 5 we’ve sat down, we’ve discussed this, this is my now informed 6 position. 7 Q Understood, and I — I should have been clearer. I 8 was referring to his recommendation that if you were going to 9 proceed, you should start with a — 10 11 12 13 I 4 15 16 17 A Right. Q — complaint. A Right. Q Just to be clear. A And I’m just saying — Q Okay. A — initial thoughts are — yeah. Q All right. So, were you aware that 18 bootlegged a copy of the pros memo to at CEOS? 20 22 23 Q Q He did at that time. A 0k:Fcf. And did you — did you know A A little bit. I certainly knew of him. Q Had you encountered him when — he was the chief of¶

Page 93 the child exploitation and obscenities section A Right. Q in the criminal division here, correct? Had you encountered him while you were in this building also? A Most likely. I knew of him enough that the correspondence shows — and I recall asking to involve him pretty early on. Q So, it does read as if you were acquainted with him. A Yeah. ^QAll right. And did you have any — did his opinion, his views as chief of CEOS and as who had been an AUSA —A Right. Q A In Miami. ^Q— Miami, did his views have influence on your thinking about this case? A I don’t think at this time I was aware that had been consulted. Q All right, and in July, just so you know, and I — and this is not something you saw — he provided a fairly strong statement to — by e-mail to and in which he advises that he reviewed the pros memo closely.¶

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

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

Page 96 1 pre-indictment resolution. 2 And so, here, you havellIII, based on this Exhibit 3 7, saying, we need to get on the same page as to what to 4 charge, pre-indictment resolution, cap him with conspiracy 5 count to make up the attractive. 6 So, a five year cap, something less than five 7 years, you have in her affidavit that was submitted to 8 the court saying she favored a pre-indictment resolution. 9 And so, it’s not a, have you addressed everything, yes or no, 10 as opposed to putting all of this, how do we — 11 Q All right. 12 A — how do we move forward? 13 Q Right, but there is a binary point here, and that 14 is, you either indict or you don’t indict. You either 15 present an indictment to the grand jury, or you don’t, right? 16 That’s a decision. Right? 17 A So, I would — I would actually push back in that 18 in many cases, it’s not quite that binary. In many cases, 19 you sit down with opposing counsel and say, look, we can go 20 to a grand jury, and we can present this indictment and 21 indict, or we can resolve this now. If we resolve this now, 22 this is the path that can go forward. Alternatively, we can 23 go here. And so, it’s not an A versus B. 24 Q I understand that nuance, but the decision to 25 indict does — I mean, you either indict or you don’t. If¶

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

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

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

Page 100 1 combination with the FBI, would be pursuing those matters, 2 and looking to develop the evidence and corroborate, and 3 throughout this process, it would have been my assumption and 4 hope that she was continuing to develop the facts, because 5 that can only help. 6 Q And so as U.S. Attorney, would it indeed have been 7 your expectation? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And the expectation that her — that all those 10 interim supervisors would have been supporting her and 11 encouraging her and guiding her? 12 A It would have been, and that — that’s what happens 13 in typical cases. 14 Q Right. 15 A Just because we’re having a legal discussion 16 doesn’t mean you stop pursuing leads. 17 Q All right. Let me stick with the evidence piece of 18 that. 19 A Yeah. 20 Q I’m going to keep these — 21 A Helpful. 22 Q — strains going. You got a very detailed 23 accounting in — reflected in Exhibit 8 from of the 24 different Jane Does, and there were a lot of them, and there 25 were — there were many counts in the indictment, and many¶

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. had met — was meeting with them, *indeed was finding new victims along with the FBI, and they were conducting individualized assessments of the viability of each victim witness, and indeed 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¶

Page 101¶

Page 102¶

a fair —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. 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 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, 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¶

Page 103 because that was more within their — their area of expertise. Q Right, and in particular was known as a trial attorney. A Right. Q Correct? A Right. Q Do you recall having discussions with about that? 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 talked about it? A I can’t say — and I can say, I recall the discussion, you know, I don’t know — 12 years ago, you might¶

Page 104 recall a discussion from 12 years ago. What — what you presented to me, for the record, I’m pointing to , or I’m indicating the — the issue about civil rights, do you recall who else was in the room or wasn’t in the room at the time? 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 did of the victim witnesses? A I — I can’t speak to that. A Yeah, I — Q It’s a rhetorical question. ^AIt’s a rhetorical question. Q We’ll take it, I guess. A But —Q ^A— you know, it’s very — it — one can remember¶

Page 105 Q Do you know whether he actually met with any of the victim witnesses? A I can’t speak to that. ^QDo you know whether went to West Palm and sat down and actually went through the evidence as to each one of the potential — A I —Q — witnesses? A I can’t speak to that. Q Do you know any of that information as to SNP A Again, I can’t — I can’t speak to that. ^I would — I would say that — that 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 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¶

Page 106 individuals about ^acase, 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 — Q — you know — A — I don’t recall that —4 — 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, ^Imean victim witness. Did you ever sit down with and have her present to you each witness — each victim as a potential witness, and her individualized credibility issues, and how as a — as ^a prosecutor and an experienced trial attorney, 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-bms. 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¶

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 and , she asks to make a presentation to you in the last major paragraph of her e-mail on page four. She says, “I would like to make a presentation to the U.S. Attorney, 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, and 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 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¶

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 very much wanted to make a presentation to you and to and 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 ^alot 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?¶

Page 109 I mean, there are a lot of e-mails, but — A There is. There are a lot of e-mails, right. Q But a lot of them are because there are draft — later on, we have drafts and so on, but — A Q — 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 and you without being involved back when —A Correct. Q was crim chief, and then here, she — the — what 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.¶

Page 110 This was a case where there was ample communication — MR. : Well —BY MS. Q Did 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 If he or or even had 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. : That’s okay. MS. : — cut you off.¶

Page 111 BY MR. Q You’ve talked about needing to respect the chain of command. A Right. Would there have been any repercussions for a line assistant actually trying to approach you about this presentation? ^AI 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. BY MS.¶

Page 112 Q Did you wander up down — up to West Palm and do that too? A Less often, but yes. BY MR. Q You talked a little bit about the experience of your senior staff. A Right. Q What do you know about the experience had in handling these types of cases? A You — when you say these types, you mean — Q Sex crimes — A 4 had A I can’t. Q — cases involving children — A I can’t — Q — or child victims? ^AI can’t speak to that. I don’t know. Q What about A I can’t speak to that. Q or A I can’t speak to that. BY MS. Q But you do know that substantial experience with child sex crimes?¶

Page 113 A Q You named her PSA coordinator. A I know that she had experience with prior cases. Q 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 . 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, 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 they — there was such a meeting? A It — so, / don’t have a recollection, but it rings¶

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 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 ^acase like this make a — as you said a moment ago, pop your head in — A Right. Q — and say hello?¶

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 Mn-hmm. A — meeting with — Q 14M-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, 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¶

Page 116 IMP 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 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. Q June 26th, 2007. Okay. A You know, and as I reviewed the documents, I tried¶

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 under 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 A 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 an e-mail to you from A Yes. III, who is — was and is the ethics —¶

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 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 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¶

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. line: Q Would you have read the letter before it went out? ^AProbably. 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 tc 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 ⁸was 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, 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.¶

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. Q 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. A — paragraph by paragraph. Q Okay. Okay. A But —¶

Page 121 ^QBut nothing struck you so much that you — A 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, ^Isaw 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 —¶

Page 122 A 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 ^aroom and figure out the resolution in the next half hour. Q Mh-hmm. A But this was a course as things are discussed and there’s a back and forth over the course of some days or ^a 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 ^Ican’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 , and this¶

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, 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. course of conduct, I don’t think he would have raised that possibility in ^acase 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¶

Page 124 believe you had any understanding of what amount of jail time was in play at this point when tells Lilly Ann Sanchez — ^AI can’t pinpoint that timeline — Q All right. ^A— to that degree. Q All right. A 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 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 had made that informal discussion comment to Lilly Ann Sanchez without having told¶

Page 125 ^Iyou, 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 — ^acriminal 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. Q And she left about a month after you came on board? A Was it that — was it that quick? Q That’s our information, yes.¶

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 at major crimes? A I don’t remember that. deputy 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 Ma-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 Ma-hmm.¶

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 — ^AShe subsequently set up her own practice, and ^I thought she’s done well for herself. Q Okay. Were you aware that 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 past? 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¶

Page 128 somebody in a matter being ultimately supervised by… would you have expected= 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 conflict. I said, keep going. Q And in fact, , you’re talking about the Herman —A Yes. Q — connection, the prior — A Yes. Q — short lived law firm connection. Are you aware that in fact vetted that through 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¶

Page 129 through IIIIII is highly respected in the office, and —Q Mm-hmm. ^A— that would be the appropriate — ^QSo, are you also aware that raised, again with III, 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 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 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.¶

Page 130 Q 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 Q And in this case, what we’re talking about is an informal conversation, or informal discussion, to use 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. 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, in a 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.¶

Page 131 BY MS. Q What do you make of this really acid tone between and IIIII? Between and in this Exhibit ³ exchange? I mean, is really — as I read it, it’s pretty strong. A I — I can’t — I — I’m not sure what to make of it. 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. 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. says that the — she complains about this soft — that’s my term — plea offer that 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 . Did 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 who was the SAC, and as I recall, he supported the eventual direction of this case.¶

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 — 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, 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. Q Okay.¶

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 was 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, 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¶

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. Q All right. We’re going to go back on the record.¶

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 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 — Q One page. A — ^aminute, if you don’t mind. Q Do you want to go off the record while Mr. Acosta —(Off the record.) BY MS. Q All right. On the record again. For the record, Mr. Acosta has just reviewed and e-mail from-to , and 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¶

Page 136 comments? A I don’t. Q All right. Before we broke, we were — I mentioned your statement about SAC 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 — you don’t have to read it yourself. 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 ^Ithink 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 Right.¶

Q — is made? A 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 ^avery 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. 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.¶

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-hram. 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. Q Did you ever issue an instruction to the trial team that they should not consult with the victims before the NPA¶

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 ^Xperiod 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. 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. , and one of the things that she told us, she has a recall of a — of ^a meeting with you present, Mr. , and Mr. , 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¶

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 — ^ageneral concern about the victim notification, what does that do? Because the victim is also a witness, and a — Q Mm-hmm. A — potential witness, and in some cases and adverse witness. And so, how does all that balance out? Q Okay. Well, we’re going to drill down into those —A Right. post-NPA issues later on. A Right. Q Just now, focusing on — A Right. pre-NPA, before it’s signed, when the negotiations are going back and forth. A Right. Q You have memory of this topic coming up?¶

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. ^QSo, 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 sets out her reasoning in her affidavit. She talks about — BY MS. 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¶

Page 142 ^Ia 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. • Q Okay, just — just one other point, and this is that — we’ve reviewed — — Ms. 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 — ^ARight. Q — just the pre-NPA — A Yeah. Q — pre-signing of that. So, does that change your answer at all? A 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¶

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. Q Right, but just to follow up A Right. Q — did you hear any discussion amongst the people that you were dealing with — A 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 —¶

MS. THE WITNESS: MS. Page 144 : When ---- part of that. : — when you talk about — go ahead. MR. : We — we’re going to get into the plea — THE WITNESS: Right. MR. : — and what we’re —MS. : All right. THE WITNESS: Right. MR. : — ^alittle bit later on. THE WITNESS: Right. BY MR. Q Just one — can I just direct you to — A Yeah. Q — document number 15? MS. : Exhibit 15? THE WITNESS: Yeah. BY MR. Q Okay. So, do you — that was an e-mail that is from Ms. to , then forwarded to you? A Yeah. Q Do you see the reference in there where she mentions that she spoke to , or reminded her — where is it? MS. : It’s in the second paragraph —¶

Page 145 THE WITNESS: Yeah, no, I — MS. S : in the middle. THE WITNESS: I see it. MR. : The middle —THE WITNESS: It’s highlighted. BY MR. Q Could you just read that? The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as i 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. and 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 ^Ican’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 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, what notification is appropriate is really a function of¶

Page 146 about the topic of what we have to do as far as notification in the pre-NPA negotiations? ^AI — 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. : By him. THE WITNESS: Yeah. BY MR. 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¶

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. 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. 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 ^alegal 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¶

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 —A Right. Q — concerning impeachment of the victims regarding their —A Yeah. Q — 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¶

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 ^avery 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 today, 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.¶

Page 150 BY MS. ²Q In the last 15 or — ^ARight. ⁴Q — 20 minutes, you’ve several times referred to discussions and we. ^ARight. ⁷Q 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, , and If — is there anyone else who was involved in those discussions other than those five? ²A Not to my recollection at this phase. ¹³Q Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure —14 A Yes. ¹⁵Q — we understand who you - lE A Yeah. Q — who is encompassed — 8 A Right. ¹⁹Q — in that general discussion — 2C A Right. ²¹Q — of — of the matter. Okay. So, on July 26, so, ²²we’re now a month after that — that presentation by the ²³defense counsel to the team, including and 24 A Correct. ²Q There was a meeting in Miami, and it was, again,¶

Page 152 was coming. This was — they were completely blindsided. The question is, were you aware that was going to announce that you had decided on this resolution? A So, I don’t recall that, but I had decided and ^Sendorsed 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 and 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.¶

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 — A Again, I — Q — recollection of that? ^A— I don’t remember the meeting. Q All right. A I may have — I may have done that. Q And it’s not — ^ARight. Q — completely uncharacteristic of you? ^ARight. Q Okay. A It’s not. Q All right. ^ANo, because that was an internal meeting. That wasn’t — Q Right, or — correct, as opposed to the — A Right. Q — scenario we were discussing this morning. Ail right, this deal, and we’re not talking about A Right. Q — the term sheet yet, two major prongs me want to¶

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 — ^alittle more fluid. The way the matter came to the office was, the state wasn’t doing enough. 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 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.¶

Page 155 state pre-indictment resolution. I think you showed me an exhibit where 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 exter. 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. ^Iwas very supportive. We set up some of the first human trafficking task forces. I thought civil rights really became aggressive. I think III was one of the point people. We brought in to be a point person on human trafficking. One of the background issues that — that¶

Page 156 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¶

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 ? Did — 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 — A Right. Q — did you sit in your office and ponder them, or did you in the context of — A We would have — we would have discussed them. Q All right, we, being you, and — A I and — whether it’s or or¶

Page 158 wouldn’t have sat and pondered them on my own, but we would have had some level of discussion about these. So, conversely, is it your understanding that - that those three guys understood from you at least your perspective on these legal issues? ^AI — let me — let me push back. Those — those three professionals, because they are — Q Oh — A Yeah. Q I’m sorry. ^AWell, 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 Mis-hmm, A And you see it with the fed — with the reference at the very beginning to the federal nexus — Q Mit-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¶

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, 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 your press conference. 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 —¶

EFTA00009387¶

Page 160 A Right. Q — is a slam dunk. A 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 ^acase 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. Q All right. A And let’s assume that there is no misconduct,¶

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. Q So, were you aware of that at the time? A I was not. Q You were not. A Right.¶

Page 162 Q You were not aware that that was an actual concern and understanding — A That — that there was —Q — by your team? ^AThat there was a concern that they basically — Tanked the case. A Tanked. Q Yes. A So, there was — I —Q You — I just — A 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 ^acase. Q Right, but I am telling you the concern by your people at the ground level A Right. Q — was the latter. A Understood. Q Okay. A Aware of lack of aggression, tanking the case, very specifically, ^Imean, there might have been, hey, you know,¶

Page 16-: 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. ^ASo, experience with how juries in South Florida looked at these matters, and with how South Florida looked ^a-. the project Safe Neighborhood — I’m sorry, — 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. Q On what? A On — on sort of sex cases more generally. Q And pushback in what regard? A Where should we put our resources? And so, there was — there was just a general — just general pushback.¶

Page 164 Q Okay, but there are a couple things there. One is, the juries — the juries — the petite juries, and which —A Right. — 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 — A So — Q — engaged with. A 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.¶

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 , and I 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¶

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? A So, I believe I was at the forefront of trafficking¶

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 ^avery 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.¶

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 Did — did you — A And — Q — talk to him about these issues? Because —A Not —Q — CEOS — A Not to —Q — was at the forefront of —A Not to my recollection. Q All right. Wouldn’t — MR. TODD: Let finish her questions. THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry. Sorry. MS. : We’re all —THE WITNESS: I apologize. MS. : We’re on a mutual role here. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MS. 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¶

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,¶

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 —Q All right. A — he had a sentence that he — where he went to jail. 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¶

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 occasions in which the office, if you recall at all, did do 11C1C — A There —Q — plea agreements? A — may have been. I don’t recall. Q Okay. All right. MR. : And , before we move onto — MS. : Yes. MR. — another issue, can I — MS. : Yeah. I’m —MR. : — go back a second — MS. — still with federal — I’m still on the federal prosecution, but go ahead. ²⁵BY MR.¶

=,=3e, 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 talked about earlier, that they impeached? 2i have — I have read that it was a single witness.¶

Page 173 Since then, I don’t have an independent recollection of that. Q Okay. BY MS. Q And were you — how familiar were you with Florida state criminal procedure? 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. Q — suggesting — A Right. Q — otherwise. A And in federal employment, you can move from ^AIt depends what — what area. ^QWell, you never practiced there, right? A Correct. ^QI forget what law school you went to. A Not Florida. ^QNot in Florida, and you were not a member of the Q Right.¶

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 ware not required to be used to bring federal criminal charges except in capital cases? A Yes. ^QOkay, so even bringing ^acase to a grand jury was an — in ^anon-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, , 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?¶

Page 175 A — I phrased it that way, but I — I take — I take your — Q We’ll defer to the record. A 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 three point Q The term sheet?¶

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. , 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 I do 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 , 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¶

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 only bringing that to your attention — 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, is ^a memo, not to you, but to 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 C1C 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. A So — Q — put it to paper. A So, I can only speculate. Q mm-hmm. A And questions I would have is, to what extent was this put on paper, because it was a case that or others¶

EFTA00009405¶

Page 17E 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, at 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 ^amemo 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 4}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.¶

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 ^aconcern 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¶

Page 180 a 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 said, 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 pushes back and says, I haven’t seen that, and he’s the local expert, so I deferred¶

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? break? MR. HERRON: Yeah. THE WITNESS: Sorry, just ^a— MS. : Do you want to take a five minute THE WITNESS: Would you mind? MS. : Not at all. THE WITNESS: Yeah. MS. : Call it, please, at any time. THE WITNESS: Let me grab the Red Bull. MS. : Off the record. (Off the record.) BY MS. 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¶

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 — A Oh. Q — your edits. A Okay. So, let’s — before I say I think, let’s go 2.3 to —Q But —A — 21.¶

Page 183 Q But before me 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 — 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 Q By — you did — you did it through Epstein. A 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¶

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. And that was — when you say they, you mean the defense team? 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 2C argument, a two-year cap, which would have required a C1C 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¶

Page 165 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 on the 31st 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¶

Page 186 1 attorneys of record in this case, and I don’t know when they came onto the case. 3 Q Well, there’s an e-mail in the package that 4 indicates that you got a call from K and E 5 6 8 9 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 — 10 we can — and probably will talk about whether those terms 11 were the best judgement or not, but once those terms were agreed and approved, with the exception of the 24 to 18 as a 13 material, and then we can talk about how that happened, we 14 stuck, and I backed the office, and I backed in her 15 negotiations on those. And so, I just — I think that’s 16 important to note. 17 Q I understand. I — that’s not, for the moment, the 18 focus. 19 A Fair. 20 Q It’s the terms themselves, and in this case, the 21 state court disposition, everything that you wanted to get 22 with the state court disposition, you could have gotten with 23 a federal plea — 24 A We — Q — much more easily.¶

Page 18- 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 Q — would fit into the round hole of — of the two years that had been committed to was a process that came¶

Page 188 before the NPA was actually negotiated, at a time when was working with defense counsel to see if there was a federal charges that could be within the two year — 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. ^AAnd 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 I 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.¶

A 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 —¶

Page 189¶

Met-hum. A — and then let me speculate. Q Mel-hmm. 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? ^AThat — 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 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,¶

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 Q — how they related to —A 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 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¶

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? ^AGenerally, ^I— I know that —Q Right. ^A— there is a process. Q Right. A Might ^Iat 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 2. know happened that that’s the way it —¶

Page 193 A So —Q — happened? A So, it is my recollection of my understanding, which is convoluted, so let me —Q yeah. A /t is how I recall viewing the term sheet when ^I approved it. Q Okay. A How it got into — and so, if we got to the term 0 sheet —Q It’s 21 — no, it’s not. A It’s — it’s one of these exhibits. MR. 15. BY MS. 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¶

Page 194 originally was going to bring? A I can’t speak to that. Q You don’t know. A I don’t know. Q So, you don’t know what the statutes were? A Yeah. Q Okay. ^AYeah. 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¶

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 ^aconcern, someone was trying to address that concern, or ^Imight 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 correct? , possibly¶

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 — 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. ^Iwant 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 recommendation, 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¶

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, / 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 occur, 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¶

Page 198 done all the collateral deals and stuck to what was — Q But that came later. A It —^QThis is before it’s signed. ^AIt 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. Q Okay. Okay. I just wanted to —A And you know, again, this is — this is a hindsight thing, but yes.¶

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, 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. Q — between zealous and — A 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? ^Imean, clearly by the morning of that¶