Bản chép lời đầy đủ của Mega Edition: Transcripts From The Alex Acosta Deposition (Part 10-12) (11/12/26)

64 00:04:01.580 --> 00:04:04.580 was broadening of a less narrow version that defense counsel 65 00:04:04.620 --> 00:04:08.240 had suggested. Do you recall any conversation about why it 66 00:04:08.280 --> 00:04:12.199 was broader? Answer, so I don't recall any conversation about this. 67 00:04:12.639 --> 00:04:16.019 I ultimately approved the agreement, and because as U.S. attorney, 68 00:04:16.350 --> 00:04:19.949 I ultimately approved it, I'm responsible for it. What's contained 69 00:04:20.069 --> 00:04:23.509 in the report I have no recollection of this. My assumption, 70 00:04:23.910 --> 00:04:26.509 as I approved the ultimate agreement, is that we had 71 00:04:26.569 --> 00:04:29.449 very experienced attorneys, and that this would have been brought 72 00:04:29.509 --> 00:04:33.610 through and negotiated. I was focused, honestly, on him going 73 00:04:33.649 --> 00:04:36.250 to jail, him serving, as you know, him having to 74 00:04:36.290 --> 00:04:40.149 register as an offender, and the recovery. And my edits 75 00:04:40.189 --> 00:04:42.959 to the agreement focused on the agreement was directing the 76 00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:46.459 state to take action, and I didn't think that as U.S. Attorney, 77 00:04:46.759 --> 00:04:49.259 I had the authority to direct the state. So I 78 00:04:49.319 --> 00:04:52.189 changed it from directing the state to directing Epstein to 79 00:04:52.230 --> 00:04:56.509 work with the state. Question. Okay, so no. Answer. I 80 00:04:56.550 --> 00:05:01.480 have no. Question. Interrupts him again. No overall recollection about 81 00:05:01.519 --> 00:05:04.319 how the sentence came to be, how those four names 82 00:05:04.420 --> 00:05:08.620 came to be. Answer. No independent recollection of that. Question. 83 00:05:08.660 --> 00:05:11.079 All right. Do you have any recollection whether or not 84 00:05:11.120 --> 00:05:14.529 your office informed those four individuals that they were not 85 00:05:14.569 --> 00:05:18.170 going to be named in the prosecution agreement? Answer. I 86 00:05:18.209 --> 00:05:22.779 have no independent recollection. Question, and then based off what 87 00:05:22.800 --> 00:05:25.399 you just said, again, not trying, we don't want to 88 00:05:25.439 --> 00:05:28.600 interfere in any ongoing litigation either. But based off what 89 00:05:28.620 --> 00:05:31.579 you said, the past decision, is it your understanding that 90 00:05:31.620 --> 00:05:34.360 this language does not limit the Southern District of New 91 00:05:34.399 --> 00:05:40.019 York from prosecuting those individuals or other known co-conspirators? Answer, 92 00:05:40.120 --> 00:05:43.379 so you know, it's my, was, my understanding at the time, 93 00:05:43.879 --> 00:05:45.980 and as I read this, I would have been aware 94 00:05:46.019 --> 00:05:49.540 of the department's policy that any such provision authorized by 95 00:05:49.560 --> 00:05:53.610 a U.S. attorney does not bind outside of Florida. And 96 00:05:53.689 --> 00:05:56.209 a district court has held that. A court of appeals 97 00:05:56.470 --> 00:05:59.769 has held that. It's pending in the Supreme Court, and 98 00:05:59.810 --> 00:06:02.449 we know that they ended up denying it as well, 99 00:06:02.529 --> 00:06:05.120 by the way. And that's also the written policy of 100 00:06:05.139 --> 00:06:09.060 the U.S. Question, and kind of, I mean, and I 101 00:06:09.100 --> 00:06:12.060 understand it's still pending, the final outcome, but kind of 102 00:06:12.139 --> 00:06:15.279 exemplified by the Maxwell case of the Southern District of 103 00:06:15.319 --> 00:06:18.420 New York did choose to move forward despite the provision 104 00:06:18.660 --> 00:06:22.699 being in place. Answer, that's correct. Answer, alright. I don't 105 00:06:22.740 --> 00:06:25.589 want to get into the nitty-gritty of the CRVA because 106 00:06:25.629 --> 00:06:28.230 I don't have it memorized. I'm not a crime victim's lawyer, 107 00:06:28.649 --> 00:06:30.250 so I don't want to touch too much on the 108 00:06:30.310 --> 00:06:34.350 individual terms. My general understanding of that is it requires 109 00:06:34.389 --> 00:06:38.129 notification to potential victims prior, I think you said prior 110 00:06:38.170 --> 00:06:42.730 to indictment? Is that fair? Answer, at the time, the 111 00:06:42.769 --> 00:06:45.769 Office of Legal Counsel had written an opinion for the department. 112 00:06:46.149 --> 00:06:49.779 The CVRA, I think, was relatively new. had just been 113 00:06:49.819 --> 00:06:52.800 passed by Congress a year or two prior. The Office 114 00:06:52.839 --> 00:06:55.600 of Legal Counsel had written an opinion that said it 115 00:06:55.639 --> 00:06:58.800 does not attach until an actual indictment, so it doesn't 116 00:06:58.839 --> 00:07:03.939 even attach pre-indictment. So, it doesn't, at the time, until indictment. 117 00:07:04.610 --> 00:07:07.829 And just to interject here, Epstein's lawyers knew this. That's 118 00:07:07.870 --> 00:07:11.089 why they ended up going with the NPA. They think 119 00:07:11.129 --> 00:07:14.889 everybody's stupid, man. They really think everybody's dumb and nobody's 120 00:07:14.910 --> 00:07:18.839 been paying attention. Breaking news, We're paying attention, so save 121 00:07:18.860 --> 00:07:23.000 the happy horseshit for somebody else, Mr. Acosta. Question. So 122 00:07:23.060 --> 00:07:25.740 I guess, I mean, was there ever actually an indictment 123 00:07:25.779 --> 00:07:30.120 in the case? Answer. There was not. Question. So was there? 124 00:07:30.370 --> 00:07:33.870 Is it based off of the OLC opinion? Your understanding 125 00:07:33.930 --> 00:07:36.509 is that if there was not an indictment, if it 126 00:07:36.550 --> 00:07:39.750 goes with the non-prosecution agreement, and there's not a plea 127 00:07:39.790 --> 00:07:43.889 in court, that victims would not have been notified? So 128 00:07:44.009 --> 00:07:48.089 not only is it my understanding, but The Justice

Department, 129 00:07:48.449 --> 00:07:51.610 in this 300-page report, found that there was no misconduct, 130 00:07:51.649 --> 00:07:54.680 no violation of law, no violation of policy, because it 131 00:07:54.720 --> 00:07:57.660 was the Justice Department's position that it did not attach. 132 00:07:58.279 --> 00:08:01.800 And the litigation that was cited, the Justice Department, through 133 00:08:01.899 --> 00:08:06.430 multiple administrations, through the Bush administration, and then its subsequent administrations, 134 00:08:06.850 --> 00:08:10.850 both Republican and Democrat, kept taking that position that there 135 00:08:10.889 --> 00:08:15.209 was no violation because the CVRA did not attach. Question. 136 00:08:15.490 --> 00:08:18.009 On October 10th, Mr. Lefkowitz sent you a letter saying 137 00:08:18.050 --> 00:08:21.009 that it was cited in the OPR report no federal 138 00:08:21.149 --> 00:08:24.350 agent or employee of the U.S. Attorney's Office should contact 139 00:08:24.389 --> 00:08:27.829 the victims to inform them of the resolution of the case. 140 00:08:28.389 --> 00:08:30.860 And then two days later, you had breakfast, so I'm 141 00:08:30.879 --> 00:08:33.259 going to ask you about the breakfast. But I would 142 00:08:33.279 --> 00:08:35.100 think that most of us are lawyers in the room. 143 00:08:35.460 --> 00:08:39.080 Is there a difference between should and could? Answer. I 144 00:08:39.419 --> 00:08:41.929 would say there is. But you know, as the record 145 00:08:41.950 --> 00:08:45.429 will show later, we basically said that he's wrong and 146 00:08:45.470 --> 00:08:47.909 we can do what we want. Question, so you weren't 147 00:08:47.950 --> 00:08:53.210 precluded from notifying? Answer, we weren't precluded. I think, I 148 00:08:53.250 --> 00:08:55.889 think that phrase that I remember from the report said, 149 00:08:56.370 --> 00:08:58.769 what you were suggesting is a gag order and the U.S. 150 00:08:58.830 --> 00:09:02.370 attorney does not accept a gag order. Question, was it 151 00:09:02.450 --> 00:09:06.330 odd for defense counsel to suggest to you how to 152 00:09:06.370 --> 00:09:10.779 work with victims in an ongoing case? Well, not this 153 00:09:10.840 --> 00:09:14.320 defense counsel. Question, can you explain that a little bit more? Answer, 154 00:09:14.679 --> 00:09:16.940 I think we've talked about how the defense counsel skirted 155 00:09:16.980 --> 00:09:20.899 the line. Question, so this is one instance of them 156 00:09:20.940 --> 00:09:23.950 telling U.S. attorneys how to interact with victims in an 157 00:09:24.090 --> 00:09:27.009 ongoing case? Do you have other examples off the top 158 00:09:27.029 --> 00:09:31.370 of your head? Answer, of defense lawyers doing that? No. Question, 159 00:09:31.429 --> 00:09:35.190 in this case, do you have other examples of Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Dershowitz, 160 00:09:35.490 --> 00:09:39.399 or Mr. Starr? Answer, so in this, Then he's cut 161 00:09:39.440 --> 00:09:42.659 off again, telling you back to Acosta, who once again answers, 162 00:09:43.059 --> 00:09:46.000 you know, in the very context you mentioned, they were 163 00:09:46.019 --> 00:09:48.750 going to be breakfast. And then after the breakfast, the 164 00:09:48.789 --> 00:09:51.389 breakfast took place in Palm Beach. I was giving a 165 00:09:51.409 --> 00:09:55.190 speech there. It was a convenient location. And after the breakfast, 166 00:09:55.250 --> 00:09:58.309 I called my first assistant and debriefed him. And I 167 00:09:58.350 --> 00:10:01.600 don't have independent recollection of this. This again is based 168 00:10:01.659 --> 00:10:05.360 on the Justice Department's report finding that there was no impropriety, 169 00:10:05.899 --> 00:10:08.600 nothing wrong with the breakfast. And then he emails the 170 00:10:08.639 --> 00:10:11.460 first assistant saying that I had agreed to something which 171 00:10:11.519 --> 00:10:13.990 I had not agreed to. And we had to email 172 00:10:14.019 --> 00:10:17.470 him something back saying you're wrong. Acosta did not agree 173 00:10:17.490 --> 00:10:20.429 to such a thing. Question. Question. Do you have any 174 00:10:20.470 --> 00:10:23.169 other examples off the top of your head of one 175 00:10:23.210 --> 00:10:26.750 of those three individuals trying to like Acosta cuts him off? 176 00:10:27.190 --> 00:10:29.769 I think there are multiple examples in the record where 177 00:10:29.809 --> 00:10:32.269 they would claim that there was an agreement, but there 178 00:10:32.309 --> 00:10:36.039 was none and vice versa. Question. No, I'm more interested 179 00:10:36.059 --> 00:10:39.399 in defense attorneys for Mr. Epstein attempting to interfere in 180 00:10:39.419 --> 00:10:42.759 the U.S. Attorney's Office's ability to work with, interview, or 181 00:10:42.820 --> 00:10:47.860 notify victims. So this is one example of that. Answer. So. Question. No. 182 00:10:48.149 --> 00:10:50.549 where a defense attorney is telling you they read of 183 00:10:50.590 --> 00:10:52.769 the law and read it as an attempt to block 184 00:10:52.820 --> 00:10:57.039 you from talking to victims. Are there others? Answer, I 185 00:10:57.080 --> 00:10:59.580 understand the question now. So one of the issues that 186 00:10:59.620 --> 00:11:02.460 arose was as a result of our seeking a mechanism, 187 00:11:02.840 --> 00:11:05.419 a way for the victims to recover money, we set 188 00:11:05.460 --> 00:11:09.500 up a system whereby he would concede liability and they would, 189 00:11:09.799 --> 00:11:15.029 in essence, just argue over amounts. Question, uh-huh. Answer, defense 190 00:11:15.070 --> 00:11:17.549 counsel argued, that the way that it was set up 191 00:11:17.809 --> 00:11:20.309 was a conflict of interest, and that we couldn't proceed. 192 00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:22.899 And that was one of the grounds on which they 193 00:11:22.960 --> 00:11:26.559 appealed to Washington, and my first assistant and defense

counsel 194 00:11:26.820 --> 00:11:29.399 had a vigorous exchange over a number of weeks over 195 00:11:29.440 --> 00:11:32.779 that topic. We wanted the victims to be able to recover, 196 00:11:33.100 --> 00:11:35.460 and we thought once he signed, he meant what he said, 197 00:11:35.899 --> 00:11:39.769 and after he signed, he tried to get out of it. Question, 198 00:11:39.789 --> 00:11:42.269 did defense counsel ever try to interfere with your ability 199 00:11:42.330 --> 00:11:45.690 to work with FBI or other investigators in order to 200 00:11:46.000 --> 00:11:49.419 To gather information. Answer, not to my knowledge, but again, 201 00:11:49.820 --> 00:11:53.070 as I said before, I would typically direct the FBI 202 00:11:53.110 --> 00:11:56.429 how to gather their information, or our line attorneys how 203 00:11:56.450 --> 00:12:00.830 to gather information. Question, understanding OPR found the breakfast was fine, 204 00:12:01.169 --> 00:12:04.289 I'm just wondering, like, what was the discussion at breakfast 205 00:12:04.350 --> 00:12:09.570 regarding informing the victims? Answer, so as I told OPR, 206 00:12:09.850 --> 00:12:12.549 I don't remember 20 years later what the discussion was, 207 00:12:12.850 --> 00:12:14.970 I can infer. At the time, he was trying to 208 00:12:15.029 --> 00:12:18.690 recuse our lead prosecutor, Ms. Villafana. Part of the mechanism 209 00:12:18.730 --> 00:12:21.730 for her seeking recovery for the victims was to appoint what, 210 00:12:22.009 --> 00:12:25.889 for simplicity's sake, we would call the special master. To 211 00:12:25.950 --> 00:12:29.960 follow this process, Ms. Villafana had recommended someone who was known, 212 00:12:30.580 --> 00:12:33.460 or a friend or someone associated with her boyfriend, and 213 00:12:33.480 --> 00:12:37.279 defense counsel claimed that she had acted unethically and improperly 214 00:12:37.320 --> 00:12:40.220 and was looking to recuse her. Based on the timing, 215 00:12:40.539 --> 00:12:42.990 I can see how I would want to know what 216 00:12:43.029 --> 00:12:45.789 their allegations are. Ms. Villafana is a key part of 217 00:12:45.830 --> 00:12:48.730 the case. She was probably in the process of negotiating 218 00:12:48.769 --> 00:12:52.980 these issues, negotiating the victim recovery issues, and notifying victims. 219 00:12:54.159 --> 00:12:56.340 And I can infer that's what I would have viewed 220 00:12:56.679 --> 00:13:00.000 the topic as. Now, whether defense counsel brought something else 221 00:13:00.440 --> 00:13:04.799 or not, that's up to them. Question, is it common 222 00:13:04.830 --> 00:13:08.029 for defense counsel to seek information to cause recusal, or 223 00:13:08.070 --> 00:13:10.429 does it more often just kind of come up in 224 00:13:10.450 --> 00:13:13.570 the course of practice? Answer, it's not unheard of for 225 00:13:13.590 --> 00:13:16.909 a defense counsel to seek recusal or generate conflicts of interest. 226 00:13:17.309 --> 00:13:19.509

In this case, I didn't think they had a basis. 227 00:13:20.169 --> 00:13:23.200 And I did not recuse Ms. Villafana. I thought their 228 00:13:23.399 --> 00:13:26.659 attempt to recuse my first assistant was much more egregious. 229 00:13:26.679 --> 00:13:29.220 All right, we're going to wrap up right here. And 230 00:13:29.259 --> 00:13:31.419 in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going 231 00:13:31.450 --> 00:13:33.830 to pick up where we left off. All of the 232 00:13:33.870 --> 00:13:36.899 information that goes with this episode can be found in 233 00:13:36.919 --> 00:13:39.919 the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another 234 00:13:39.960 --> 00:13:43.419 episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going 235 00:13:43.440 --> 00:13:46.860 to get right back to the Alex Acosta deposition that 236 00:13:46.879 --> 00:13:51.809 was given to the Congressional Oversight Committee. Once again, Alex 237 00:13:51.870 --> 00:13:57.350 Acosta's answering questions from a whole host of people. Question. 238 00:13:58.629 --> 00:14:01.090 I'm going to go back to the NPA, but I 239 00:14:01.149 --> 00:14:03.700 want to ask just kind of your own thoughts and 240 00:14:03.720 --> 00:14:06.860 if you ever had conversations about it. Epstein obviously hired 241 00:14:06.879 --> 00:14:09.870 two people that could have potentially created a conflict for you. 242 00:14:10.370 --> 00:14:12.889 Do you think he did that on purpose? Answer. I 243 00:14:12.909 --> 00:14:15.809 think it was clear he hired two attorneys from Kirkland. One, 244 00:14:16.149 --> 00:14:19.110 because having worked with me, they would know my thinking 245 00:14:19.149 --> 00:14:22.070 and my style. Two, they could likely get an appeal 246 00:14:22.090 --> 00:14:24.889 to Washington, D.C. And I think, yes, I think he 247 00:14:24.909 --> 00:14:28.289 did that. He hired someone that had previously worked with 248 00:14:28.330 --> 00:14:30.970 my criminal chief. He hired someone that had been a 249 00:14:30.990 --> 00:14:33.909 partner with my first assistant, I believe. He hired an 250 00:14:34.090 --> 00:14:37.009 AUSA in our office. that may have been privy to 251 00:14:37.029 --> 00:14:40.230 hallway conversation about the case. So there is a pattern 252 00:14:40.250 --> 00:14:43.350 here that we were well aware of. He hired someone 253 00:14:43.669 --> 00:14:46.529 he had an association with, the managing attorney of the 254 00:14:46.570 --> 00:14:49.429 Palm Beach office. Question, and I mean it's one thing 255 00:14:49.460 --> 00:14:52.840 to hire those people because they might know how opposing 256 00:14:52.879 --> 00:14:56.039 counsel thinks, but all the facts kind of point to 257 00:14:56.059 --> 00:14:59.200 an attempt to subvert the case. Answer, so let me 258 00:14:59.240 --> 00:15:02.429 make one thing clear as you're going there. The Office 259 00:15:02.470 --> 00:15:05.649 of Professional Responsibility at Department of Justice looked

at all 260 00:15:05.690 --> 00:15:08.909 these contacts. They looked at everyone involved. They looked at 261 00:15:09.029 --> 00:15:11.879 all the emails. They looked at every communication. And they 262 00:15:11.919 --> 00:15:16.700 found no improper conduct. They found no improper influence. They found, Neiman, 263 00:15:17.000 --> 00:15:20.840 on your behalf, Acosta, on, no, not only my behalf, 264 00:15:20.879 --> 00:15:25.559 but on behalf of everyone in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Mr. Neiman, right. Acosta, 265 00:15:26.039 --> 00:15:29.409 no improper influence, no wrongdoing. So this is something that 266 00:15:29.450 --> 00:15:33.289 was fully looked at, fully considered. Yeah, what about the 267 00:15:33.330 --> 00:15:38.179 year's worth of missing emails, Mr. Acosta? And so you 268 00:15:38.220 --> 00:15:41.100 know he hired who he hired, but we proceeded the 269 00:15:41.139 --> 00:15:43.700 way we wanted to proceed, and the record shows that. 270 00:15:44.360 --> 00:15:47.000 From before these two attorneys were brought on board, where 271 00:15:47.059 --> 00:15:50.240 I approved for two years the registration and the recovery 272 00:15:50.279 --> 00:15:55.529 mechanisms to the ultimate plea, what changed was negotiations among 273 00:15:55.549 --> 00:16:00.080 the trial team. Question by Mr. Redacted. And I want 274 00:16:00.100 --> 00:16:02.220 to be, I'm not suggesting that you should declare a 275 00:16:02.580 --> 00:16:05.340 conflict or like you guys were in the best position 276 00:16:05.600 --> 00:16:08.299 to figure that out. What I'm suggesting is that it 277 00:16:08.340 --> 00:16:11.019 looks like it's another defense tactic in an attempt to 278 00:16:11.059 --> 00:16:14.710 get even closer to the line of intentionally hiring people 279 00:16:14.970 --> 00:16:20.409 that would conflict, answer a failed question interrupting Mr. Acosta, 280 00:16:20.950 --> 00:16:25.230 lead prosecutor out, answer a failed defense tactic. Because so, 281 00:16:25.379 --> 00:16:28.250 one of the Justice Department policies on recusals is that 282 00:16:28.269 --> 00:16:31.529 you don't just recuse, because then every defense attorney could 283 00:16:31.549 --> 00:16:36.009 simply recuse all the good attorneys and experienced attorneys in 284 00:16:36.029 --> 00:16:40.250 the U.S. Attorney's Office. Question. I'm going to introduce Exhibit 3. 285 00:16:40.250 --> 00:16:46.029 It's two letters. By Mr. Redacted. Question. While we pass 286 00:16:46.049 --> 00:16:48.590 that out, I'll describe them. It's two letters sent from 287 00:16:48.610 --> 00:16:51.990 the FBI's West Palm Beach to their redacted, but to 288 00:16:52.049 --> 00:16:55.600 victim's notifying them in regards to the Epstein case, one 289 00:16:55.639 --> 00:17:00.639 from May 30th, 2008, and one from January 10th, 2008. 290 00:17:00.639 --> 00:17:04.430 Have you seen these letters prior to today? Answer, I 291 00:17:04.470 --> 00:17:07.910 don't recall. Question, okay, I'm going to focus more on 292 00:17:07.930 --> 00:17:11.789 the timeline and one sentence versus the whole notification. So 293 00:17:11.829 --> 00:17:15.029 looking at January 10th one, which the cover page is 294 00:17:15.089 --> 00:17:18.650 Exhibit 97, it's the first sentence in that letter. And 295 00:17:18.670 --> 00:17:21.960 then in the second letter, it's, the second full paragraph, 296 00:17:22.180 --> 00:17:25.640 but it reads, this case is currently under investigation. This 297 00:17:25.680 --> 00:17:28.519 can be a lengthy process and we request your continued 298 00:17:28.559 --> 00:17:32.700 patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. By January 10th, 299 00:17:32.700 --> 00:17:36.730 2008 and May 30th, 2008, the case was no longer 300 00:17:36.829 --> 00:17:43.430 under investigation. Is that correct? Answer, so that is not accurate. Question, okay. Answer, 301 00:17:43.869 --> 00:17:45.630 so and this was looked at by the Office of 302 00:17:45.670 --> 00:17:49.210 Professional Responsibility by the Justice Department and again they found 303 00:17:49.230 --> 00:17:52.549 no wrongdoing. I don't have an independent recollection, but based 304 00:17:52.609 --> 00:17:55.210 on the Justice Department's conclusions, let me try to walk 305 00:17:55.230 --> 00:17:59.900 you through it. Question, okay. Answer, he had signed a 306 00:17:59.910 --> 00:18:03.460 plea in September. Our expectation was he signed, I'm sorry, 307 00:18:03.779 --> 00:18:07.160 he had signed the agreement in September. Our expectation was 308 00:18:07.220 --> 00:18:09.799 he signed the agreement, he'd go take the plea, he'd 309 00:18:09.839 --> 00:18:12.539 go to jail, we're done. But he did not do that. 310 00:18:13.359 --> 00:18:16.329 And so my understanding at the time was that We 311 00:18:16.470 --> 00:18:19.069 did not just sit around, but that the prosecuting attorney 312 00:18:19.490 --> 00:18:22.509 and the case agent continued to work the case because 313 00:18:22.589 --> 00:18:24.670 we did not know if we would have to go 314 00:18:24.710 --> 00:18:27.259 to trial or not. And so the case was not 315 00:18:27.319 --> 00:18:29.730 done because he was not in jail. And so during 316 00:18:29.779 --> 00:18:32.940 that time, the case as a technical matter and an 317 00:18:33.039 --> 00:18:37.380 actual matter was under investigation. The prosecuting attorney and the 318 00:18:37.400 --> 00:18:40.500 case agent started notifying the victims of the actual agreement. 319 00:18:41.660 --> 00:18:44.920 They then became concerned because they, in essence, were saying, 320 00:18:45.259 --> 00:18:47.799 Here's an agreement and he goes to jail and you'll 321 00:18:47.819 --> 00:18:51.900 have the opportunity to recover what for these victims would 322 00:18:51.920 --> 00:18:56.359 have been substantial sums. And they became concerned that they 323 00:18:56.400 --> 00:18:59.319 were generating evidence that would undermine the case because in 324 00:18:59.339

--> 00:19:04.990 the usual course, he would be pleading, but he's not. Uh-huh. Answer, 325 00:19:05.289 --> 00:19:08.150 he's challenging this on appeal. And so they went to 326 00:19:08.190 --> 00:19:12.109 the professional responsibility officer again. This is from OPR, not 327 00:19:12.150 --> 00:19:15.960 my independent recollection. And they asked the professional responsibility officer, 328 00:19:16.289 --> 00:19:19.710 what should we do? And the professional responsibility officer said, 329 00:19:19.730 --> 00:19:23.349 in essence, if you feel comfortable with this, then just stop. 330 00:19:24.569 --> 00:19:26.789 And so they proceeded. But at the same time, the 331 00:19:26.890 --> 00:19:30.359 FBI generated these letters, which are accurate. But let me 332 00:19:30.400 --> 00:19:32.980 sort of say, this is another area where I understand 333 00:19:33.019 --> 00:19:36.019 why victims felt that this wasn't, you know, I think 334 00:19:36.079 --> 00:19:39.099 OPR's view was, you know, they found that we complied 335 00:19:39.160 --> 00:19:41.680 with the rules in the law, but said it wasn't 336 00:19:41.700 --> 00:19:45.470 fully forthright. And I understand that. And in retrospect, we 337 00:19:45.509 --> 00:19:49.430 were focused again, send them to jail, registration, and should 338 00:19:49.450 --> 00:19:51.930 have probably thought more about how the victims would have 339 00:19:51.950 --> 00:19:55.710 viewed it. Question, all right, I appreciate that and appreciate 340 00:19:55.730 --> 00:19:59.130 the timeline. So just for clarity, when these letters went out, 341 00:19:59.519 --> 00:20:02.420 your understanding was that that was still an investigation that 342 00:20:02.440 --> 00:20:06.000 was happening? So again, I wasn't aware that the letters 343 00:20:06.039 --> 00:20:09.019 were going out, says Acosta, because U.S. attorneys don't get 344 00:20:09.059 --> 00:20:11.970 involved in in this as a typical matter, but that 345 00:20:12.009 --> 00:20:16.170 was my word, yes. Question, and then? He gets cut 346 00:20:16.210 --> 00:20:18.890 off by Acosta. I'm sorry, that was, that would be 347 00:20:18.910 --> 00:20:23.000 my understanding, yes. Question, and then your understanding too is that, 348 00:20:23.079 --> 00:20:25.440 so we get back to the like, kind of notifying 349 00:20:25.480 --> 00:20:28.440 of the victims, and that the ethics advice was, if 350 00:20:28.559 --> 00:20:32.079 it's going to mess up the case, it's still, it's permissive, right? 351 00:20:32.680 --> 00:20:35.369 So like, you could make the determination, whether or not 352 00:20:35.390 --> 00:20:37.509 to notify, whether or not it's going to mess up 353 00:20:37.529 --> 00:20:41.230 the case. Answer, And at some point, the office had 354 00:20:41.250 --> 00:20:44.990 the appellate division check either independently or check with Washington 355 00:20:45.569 --> 00:20:49.289 on that and was told that that's when they were 356 00:20:49.329 --> 00:20:54.009 told specifically that the CVRA did not attach until indictment. Question, 357 00:20:54.029 --> 00:20:55.990 all right. And we talked about the addition of the 358 00:20:56.029 --> 00:20:58.690 four named co-conspirators a little bit. And I know that 359 00:20:58.710 --> 00:21:01.170 you don't get into kind of picking and choosing who 360 00:21:01.190 --> 00:21:04.279 gets interviewed. But do you recall if those four women 361 00:21:04.319 --> 00:21:07.480 were interviewed? Answer, I do not recall. And I wouldn't 362 00:21:07.500 --> 00:21:11.130 have reason to recall. Question, the Palm Beach Police Department 363 00:21:11.470 --> 00:21:14.470 attempted to interview those people and were, according to their report, 364 00:21:14.750 --> 00:21:17.609 told by Alan Dershowitz that those four women were out 365 00:21:17.630 --> 00:21:20.309 of the country. Do you have any knowledge of that? Answer, 366 00:21:20.329 --> 00:21:23.339 I have no knowledge of that. Question, I won't ask 367 00:21:23.380 --> 00:21:26.299 the follow-up. Would it be odd that the primary suspect's 368 00:21:26.339 --> 00:21:30.539 lawyer is communicating with the Palm Beach PD regarding four witnesses? 369 00:21:31.160 --> 00:21:33.799 Answer again, I was not involved, you know, in how 370 00:21:33.859 --> 00:21:39.130 the investigation proceeded. Question, and then to your knowledge again, understanding... 371 00:21:38.869 --> 00:21:41.349 that you're not picking and choosing who gets interviewed. Did 372 00:21:41.450 --> 00:21:45.509 anyone in your office or the FBI ever interview Ms. Maxwell? Answer, 373 00:21:45.549 --> 00:21:48.269 to my knowledge, they did not. I recall reading somewhere 374 00:21:48.630 --> 00:21:51.210 in the Justice Department report that I believe our lead 375 00:21:51.230 --> 00:21:55.259 prosecutor wasn't aware of Ms. Maxwell. I think at some 376 00:21:55.299 --> 00:21:57.619 point she said she didn't recognize the name, but I 377 00:21:57.640 --> 00:22:01.519 could be wrong. That's just a vague recollection. Question, and again, 378 00:22:01.539 --> 00:22:04.420 I'm prefacing all this with the understanding that you're not 379 00:22:04.480 --> 00:22:07.750 picking and choosing and would have know and don't have 380 00:22:07.809 --> 00:22:11.279 recollection of whether or not they were interviewed. It seems odd. 381 00:22:11.599 --> 00:22:14.650 And verging on not a fulsome investigation to enter into 382 00:22:14.690 --> 00:22:17.680 this level of agreement without interviewing these types of people. 383 00:22:17.920 --> 00:22:20.759 Do you agree? Answer, so again, I don't know. I 384 00:22:21.140 --> 00:22:24.559 was not involved in how investigation proceeded. We have very, 385 00:22:24.619 --> 00:22:27.920 very good prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida, and 386 00:22:27.960 --> 00:22:30.740 my approach would have been to trust them to proceed 387 00:22:31.119 --> 00:22:35.220 as they saw appropriate. Unless it's Villafana, right?

Because she 388 00:22:35.240 --> 00:22:39.119 wanted to proceed a different way. Question, and so with 389 00:22:39.140 --> 00:22:42.400 that trust, when they proposed a non-prosecution agreement, it was 390 00:22:42.420 --> 00:22:45.329 your belief that when they had checked all the kind 391 00:22:45.369 --> 00:22:48.009 of investigatory boxes to make sure that this was the 392 00:22:48.049 --> 00:22:51.309 best path forward? Answer, that would be my belief and 393 00:22:51.369 --> 00:22:55.730 expectation in this and other cases. Question, alright, I want 394 00:22:55.750 --> 00:22:58.829 to go back to the agreement itself. I just have 395 00:22:58.869 --> 00:23:01.609 some kind of like four corners of the agreement type questions. 396 00:23:02.109 --> 00:23:04.369 If it's A, you don't recall your thoughts, at the 397 00:23:04.410 --> 00:23:06.910 time that's fine. If you have an opinion about it now, 398 00:23:07.309 --> 00:23:11.670 That's fine too. Answer. All right. Question. On page one, 399 00:23:11.710 --> 00:23:14.950 the first kind of stipulation is that so most of 400 00:23:14.990 --> 00:23:17.720 the document refers to minor females. And did you find 401 00:23:17.779 --> 00:23:22.059 any evidence of Mr. Epstein trafficking non-minor females? Answer. Not 402 00:23:22.079 --> 00:23:25.799 to my recollection. Question. And then what would kind of 403 00:23:25.859 --> 00:23:30.380 like constitute a breach of this agreement on Mr. Epstein's side? Answer. Well, 404 00:23:30.400 --> 00:23:33.190 it requires him to take certain steps on page three. 405 00:23:33.589 --> 00:23:36.269 You know, it outlines one, two, three, four, and so on. 406 00:23:36.890 --> 00:23:40.009 And you know, ultimately, if he didn't plead, if he 407 00:23:40.089 --> 00:23:42.730 didn't serve the term as outlined in the agreement, or 408 00:23:42.779 --> 00:23:44.559 if he didn't take any of the other steps, it 409 00:23:44.579 --> 00:23:47.880 would be a breach. Question. And then the actual kind 410 00:23:47.900 --> 00:23:50.799 of like agreement of what the jail confinement would look like, 411 00:23:51.359 --> 00:23:53.960 what would work release look like, what parole or home 412 00:23:54.000 --> 00:23:57.359 confinement would look like, was all out of your hands? Answer. 413 00:23:57.660 --> 00:24:00.069 So one of the issues, look, we never expected that. 414 00:24:00.390 --> 00:24:02.630 We handed this to the state attorney and the Palm 415 00:24:02.650 --> 00:24:05.289 Beach County. They had no jail time. We gave them 416 00:24:05.309 --> 00:24:08.019 jail time. We never expected them to do anything less 417 00:24:08.039 --> 00:24:11.299 than say, outstanding, great, and have him serve his time. 418 00:24:11.980 --> 00:24:15.420 Particularly when you look into the details of the work release, 419 00:24:16.019 --> 00:24:18.519 the way he obtained that work release is troubling at best, 420 00:24:18.960 --> 00:24:20.680 and I think that was outlined in a letter

from 421 00:24:20.740 --> 00:24:24.049 our office. Question, question, and we'll get to some of 422 00:24:24.089 --> 00:24:26.869 that a bit later. Just to your recollection, would it 423 00:24:26.890 --> 00:24:29.509 be common in a parole agreement or a home confinement 424 00:24:29.529 --> 00:24:32.930 agreement to require that the convicted individual not commit any 425 00:24:33.700 --> 00:24:37.119 Any other crimes while on home confinement or parole? Answer. 426 00:24:37.400 --> 00:24:39.619 So I would think so. And I think that'd be 427 00:24:39.660 --> 00:24:43.980 part of the state's management of their prisoners. Question. But again, 428 00:24:44.309 --> 00:24:47.140 not up to the U.S. Answer. Again, not up to 429 00:24:47.160 --> 00:24:52.309 the U.S. attorney. He's within the state system. Question. If 430 00:24:52.349 --> 00:24:54.869 he were to breach parole, would that have a breach 431 00:24:54.950 --> 00:24:59.910 of the NPA? Answer. I would have to read the NPA. Question. Okay. Answer. 432 00:25:00.529 --> 00:25:02.509 In a lot more detail before I give an opinion 433 00:25:02.549 --> 00:25:05.160 like that. Alright, we're going to wrap up right here, 434 00:25:05.500 --> 00:25:07.119 and in the next episode, we're going to pick up 435 00:25:07.339 --> 00:25:09.779 where we left off. All of the information that goes 436 00:25:09.839 --> 00:25:12.940 with this episode can be found in the description box. 437 00:25:13.279 --> 00:25:16.109 What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the 438 00:25:16.170 --> 00:25:18.630 Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right 439 00:25:18.670 --> 00:25:24.529 back to Alex Acosta and his farce of a deposition. Question, 440 00:25:24.849 --> 00:25:27.569 did Ms. Villafana ever approach you with the evidence that Mr. 441 00:25:27.650 --> 00:25:31.259 Epstein was violating the NPA? Answer, no. There were certainly 442 00:25:31.319 --> 00:25:34.509 discussions within the office as how to proceed on work release, 443 00:25:34.910 --> 00:25:37.809 but I don't think that was viewed as evidence. I 444 00:25:37.849 --> 00:25:40.049 think that was viewed as, to be honest, I think 445 00:25:40.089 --> 00:25:43.829 it was viewed as the office was hoodwinked. Question, hoodwinked 446 00:25:43.849 --> 00:25:48.299 by whom? Answer, the state attorney, in part, or the state, 447 00:25:48.579 --> 00:25:51.319 let me, because the state attorney would say the Palm 448 00:25:51.339 --> 00:25:54.460 Beach Sheriff. It was not what we expected. We expected, 449 00:25:54.519 --> 00:25:59.119 quote unquote, continuous confinement. We were given assurance of continuous confinement. 450 00:25:59.579 --> 00:26:02.619 Whichever system in the Palm Beach Correctional Hierarchy chose to 451 00:26:02.640 --> 00:26:05.240 give this to him is not what we expected, and 452 00:26:05.259 --> 00:26:07.420 we made it pretty clear that we didn't think that 453 00:26:07.440 --> 00:26:10.589 it was appropriate.

Question, you said earlier, a lot earlier 454 00:26:10.630 --> 00:26:13.170 at this point, that the state was an unfair partner. 455 00:26:13.589 --> 00:26:16.789 You might have said a different word, but... Answer, I 456 00:26:16.829 --> 00:26:21.230 think an unreliable partner is what I said. Question, unreliable partner, 457 00:26:21.589 --> 00:26:24.569 is this part of the evidence that supports that statement? Answer, 458 00:26:24.609 --> 00:26:27.400 yes it is. Question, do you have any other support 459 00:26:27.480 --> 00:26:30.900 for them being an unfair partner? Answer, so one of 460 00:26:30.940 --> 00:26:32.980 the issues in the case was I believe we got 461 00:26:33.019 --> 00:26:36.119 notified on a Friday afternoon that he was taking his 462 00:26:36.220 --> 00:26:39.440 plea Monday morning. I would expect that a law enforcement 463 00:26:39.460 --> 00:26:41.740 partner would give us at least a business day, and 464 00:26:41.769 --> 00:26:44.390 I'm not being sarcastic here, on a plea of this nature. 465 00:26:45.029 --> 00:26:47.869 And so our attorneys were left to scramble and work 466 00:26:47.910 --> 00:26:51.089 with the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office and victim notification 467 00:26:51.170 --> 00:26:53.690 on very, very short notice. And I think that led 468 00:26:53.750 --> 00:26:56.730 to some of the feelings of lack of forthrightness on 469 00:26:56.750 --> 00:27:00.549 the part of the victims. Question, you've discussed some of, 470 00:27:00.569 --> 00:27:03.609 you know, I'm paraphrasing, the shadiness of his work release 471 00:27:03.630 --> 00:27:06.829 detail and where he was working. Does the Florida Science 472 00:27:06.869 --> 00:27:11.990 Foundation ring a bell about his work release? Answer, it does. Question, 473 00:27:12.329 --> 00:27:14.970 and sitting here today, what's your understanding of the Florida 474 00:27:15.009 --> 00:27:18.730 Science Foundation? Answer, when I was referencing shady, I think 475 00:27:18.750 --> 00:27:21.890 I used troublesome. Because I tend to, just for the record, 476 00:27:22.309 --> 00:27:25.049 I tend to believe in being professional and opting over 477 00:27:25.089 --> 00:27:29.450 the combative, and I sometimes understate. I've been told that 478 00:27:29.470 --> 00:27:32.089 that's a bad habit, so shady might be a better term. 479 00:27:32.569 --> 00:27:36.099 I believe that that's part of what I consider shady. Question, 480 00:27:36.500 --> 00:27:38.759 and I'm going to maybe jump a little bit out, 481 00:27:39.140 --> 00:27:43.880 and we'll introduce these documents together as Exhibit 4. Question, 482 00:27:44.240 --> 00:27:47.299 while they're being passed out, so it's the Articles of 483 00:27:47.359 --> 00:27:50.569 Incorporation for Bruce Reinhart, PA, his law firm, and the 484 00:27:50.619 --> 00:27:54.309 Articles of Incorporation for the Florida Science Foundation. Was Bruce 485 00:27:54.369 --> 00:27:57.089 Reinhart an employee in the U.S. Attorney's Office while you 486 00:27:57.109 --> 00:28:00.210 were there? Answer, so you just disclosed something I did 487 00:28:00.259 --> 00:28:04.140 not know. Question, okay. Answer, Bruce Reinhart was an employee. 488 00:28:04.359 --> 00:28:06.920 He was an AUSA that worked in the Palm Beach 489 00:28:07.000 --> 00:28:10.779 office during this inaudible. I knew that he had left 490 00:28:10.819 --> 00:28:13.700 to work for Epstein while the case was pending. I 491 00:28:13.759 --> 00:28:15.559 did not know that he was the one that filed 492 00:28:15.579 --> 00:28:19.420 these articles of incorporation. Question, so that gets to some 493 00:28:19.460 --> 00:28:22.180 of my questions. Was he directly involved in the Epstein 494 00:28:22.220 --> 00:28:26.160 investigation while at the U.S. Attorney's Office? Answer, so I 495 00:28:26.220 --> 00:28:29.099 would not have knowledge as to whether he was directly involved. 496 00:28:29.480 --> 00:28:31.660 He was not part of the core team, but within 497 00:28:31.740 --> 00:28:34.400 any office, as might be the case, in any congressional 498 00:28:34.460 --> 00:28:39.390 office or others, there are sometimes hallway discussions. Question, hear things, 499 00:28:39.690 --> 00:28:41.869 you chat with colleagues near the water cooler, that kind 500 00:28:41.910 --> 00:28:44.970 of thing. Answer, and the Palm Beach office is much 501 00:28:45.029 --> 00:28:47.829 smaller than the Miami office, and so I can't speak 502 00:28:47.869 --> 00:28:51.299 to what he did or did not know. Question, And 503 00:28:51.339 --> 00:28:54.099 it's my understanding he left, officially left the U.S. Attorney's 504 00:28:54.160 --> 00:28:58.900 Office in January of 2008. Is that your understanding now? Answer, 505 00:28:58.980 --> 00:29:01.230 I don't recall, but I know he left. And I 506 00:29:01.250 --> 00:29:02.930 know he left at some point while the case was 507 00:29:02.970 --> 00:29:07.930 pending appeal. Question, all right. We'll flip to his incorporation paperwork. 508 00:29:07.970 --> 00:29:10.309 You have it up in the top right corner of 509 00:29:10.329 --> 00:29:15.440 the first page. It says filed October 23rd, 2007. That's 510 00:29:15.559 --> 00:29:18.900 three-ish months prior to him officially leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office. 511 00:29:19.670 --> 00:29:22.079 To the best of your recollection and knowledge, is it 512 00:29:22.190 --> 00:29:26.460 ethically questionable to begin private practice while still in the U.S. 513 00:29:26.500 --> 00:29:30.900 Attorney's Office? Answer, yes. Question, is it actually unethical to 514 00:29:30.960 --> 00:29:34.150 do so? Answer, yes. Question, did you have knowledge of 515 00:29:34.190 --> 00:29:38.250 this at the time? Answer, no, so I'm sorry. To clarify, 516 00:29:38.289 --> 00:29:42.230 he filed this under Bruce Reinhart, PA, before he left 517 00:29:42.259 --> 00:29:46.720 the U.S. Attorney's Office? Answer, question, yes, sir. He filed 518 00:29:46.779 -->

00:29:50.099 it on October 23rd, 2007. We pulled this right off 519 00:29:50.119 --> 00:29:54.400 the Florida Corporation website. And then, it's our understanding that 520 00:29:54.420 --> 00:29:58.900 his last day in the U.S. Attorney's Office was January 1st, 2008. 521 00:29:58.990 --> 00:30:01.109 We're going to flip to the next one, the one 522 00:30:01.130 --> 00:30:03.519 with the big sharpie writing on it. The first page 523 00:30:03.579 --> 00:30:06.220 on this one is not as interesting, but the second 524 00:30:06.240 --> 00:30:09.099 page is the beginning of the articles of incorporation for 525 00:30:09.119 --> 00:30:12.960 the Florida Science Foundation. And this was incorporated, the stamp says, 526 00:30:13.019 --> 00:30:21.009 November 1st, 2007, so about a week after Mr. Reinhart's incorporation? Answer, yes. Question, 527 00:30:21.349 --> 00:30:23.230 and I want to compare the second page of the 528 00:30:23.309 --> 00:30:26.150 Florida Science Foundation to the first page of Mr. Reinhart. 529 00:30:26.630 --> 00:30:29.289 Article 2 for Mr. Reinhart, says the principal place of 530 00:30:29.329 --> 00:30:34.859 business is 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, in West Palm Beach, Florida. 531 00:30:35.279 --> 00:30:39.000 And Article 2 of the Florida Science Foundation says 250 532 00:30:39.000 --> 00:30:44.200 Australia Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, Florida. On its face, 533 00:30:44.559 --> 00:30:47.220 looking at this, does it appear that Mr. Reinhart and 534 00:30:47.240 --> 00:30:50.359 the Florida Science Foundation, which was a front for Mr. Epstein, 535 00:30:50.819 --> 00:30:54.789 shared the same office? Answer, on its face it does, yes. Question, 536 00:30:55.480 --> 00:30:58.890 would that be of concern to you? Answer, yes. Question, 537 00:30:59.150 --> 00:31:01.950 and then again, it's our understanding that Mr. Reinhart's first 538 00:31:01.970 --> 00:31:06.160 clients were Mr. Epstein's maid, Sarah Kellan, and Mr. Epstein's pilots. 539 00:31:06.640 --> 00:31:08.819 Would that be unethical to shift straight from a U.S. 540 00:31:08.839 --> 00:31:12.119 attorney's office, working on the case, and then taking them 541 00:31:12.200 --> 00:31:15.779 as defense clients? Answer, so I recall the office was 542 00:31:15.819 --> 00:31:19.470 troubled by Mr. Reinhart leaving and shifting to Epstein-related clients. 543 00:31:20.450 --> 00:31:23.630 I don't know what conversations he had with the ethics officials, 544 00:31:23.710 --> 00:31:27.349 but shady. Question, yes. Do you recall any conversation about Mr. 545 00:31:27.390 --> 00:31:31.329 Reinhart taking Epstein's clients at the time? Answer, I recall 546 00:31:31.390 --> 00:31:34.230 some conversations at some point. I don't know what that 547 00:31:34.279 --> 00:31:38.579 time period would be. Question, I'm going to not ask 548 00:31:38.599 --> 00:31:41.700 you to speculate, but it would certainly appear like there 549 00:31:41.759 --> 00:31:45.799 was some coordination here. Mr. Reinhart's articles of incorporation being 550 00:31:45.839 --> 00:31:48.519 at the same address a week before the Florida Science 551 00:31:48.539 --> 00:31:53.140 Foundation's incorporation and then him taking their clients. We've talked 552 00:31:53.180 --> 00:31:56.440 a lot about, to that Acosta interrupts, What is most 553 00:31:56.480 --> 00:31:59.519 troubling is that this was before he left the office. Question. 554 00:31:59.859 --> 00:32:03.220 We've talked a lot about Mr. Epstein's defense counsel attempting 555 00:32:03.240 --> 00:32:06.529 to find conflicts of interest in your office. Is this 556 00:32:06.549 --> 00:32:09.630 a conflict of interest? Not in your office, but is Mr. 557 00:32:09.670 --> 00:32:14.470 Reinhart taking Epstein's clients a conflict of interest? Answer. So 558 00:32:14.529 --> 00:32:17.109 as a technical matter, whether it's a conflict would have 559 00:32:17.130 --> 00:32:20.109 to do if he was involved in the case. As 560 00:32:20.150 --> 00:32:22.990 an ethical matter, as a professional matter, all of us 561 00:32:23.029 --> 00:32:26.759 thought it was deploring. Question, all right, thank you. After that, 562 00:32:26.799 --> 00:32:30.509 they have a quick recess. Then they're back and another 563 00:32:30.829 --> 00:32:35.150 unnamed person is asking questions. Question, good afternoon, Mr. Acosta. 564 00:32:35.490 --> 00:32:37.750 I'd just like to turn back to the federal investigation 565 00:32:37.769 --> 00:32:39.890 in your office and make sure we have a complete 566 00:32:39.950 --> 00:32:43.390 understanding of the players. And to begin with, the members 567 00:32:43.450 --> 00:32:46.660 of the U.S. Attorney's Office who handled the case, we've 568 00:32:46.700 --> 00:32:50.319 spoken about Ms. Villafana, the line prosecutor. I understand that 569 00:32:50.359 --> 00:32:55.200 Jeffrey Sloman was also part of the team. Answer, he was. Question, okay. 570 00:32:55.700 --> 00:32:57.920 And he was the chief of criminal division from 2004 571 00:32:57.920 --> 00:33:02.559 to 2006 and first assistant to U.S. attorney in your 572 00:33:02.619 --> 00:33:07.180 office from October 2006? Answer, I can't vouch for the dates, 573 00:33:07.480 --> 00:33:13.359 but that generally sounds correct. Question, and then Matthew Menchel. Answer, Menchel. Question, Menchel. 574 00:33:13.960 --> 00:33:19.140 Andrew Lurie. Answer, correct. I'm pronouncing it correctly. Answer, yes, Lurie. 575 00:33:19.640 --> 00:33:22.089 He was managing attorney for the Palm Beach office and 576 00:33:22.109 --> 00:33:24.339 then went on to be the chief of staff for 577 00:33:24.359 --> 00:33:28.740 the criminal division. Question, anyone else I haven't named who 578 00:33:28.759 --> 00:33:31.200 belongs on the list? Answer, I think that would be 579 00:33:31.269 --> 00:33:34.369 the core team. Other individuals may have been consulted from 580 00:33:34.410 --> 00:33:36.589 time to time, but I think that that would

be 581 00:33:36.650 --> 00:33:40.130 the core team. Question, what about FBI agents on the case? 582 00:33:40.390 --> 00:33:44.130 Do you recall any of their names? Answer, I do not. Question, 583 00:33:44.410 --> 00:33:47.579 did you ever interact with them during the investigation? Answer, 584 00:33:47.980 --> 00:33:50.059 I believe they were in one or two meetings, but 585 00:33:50.099 --> 00:33:52.460 as a general matter, I would not interact with them. 586 00:33:53.880 --> 00:33:56.180 I did interact from time to time with the special 587 00:33:56.240 --> 00:34:00.900 agent in charge. Question. Do you recall the person's name? Answer. John. 588 00:34:01.220 --> 00:34:03.920 I forgot his last name. I'm sorry. Question. And then Mr. 589 00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:09.019 Epstein's legal team. Answer. Yes. Question. And it's a fairly 590 00:34:09.059 --> 00:34:12.519 fulsome list, at least to my understanding. First name is 591 00:34:12.579 --> 00:34:16.590 Roy Black. Do you recall Mr. Black? Answer. Yes. Question. 592 00:34:16.610 --> 00:34:19.590 Did you know him at the time the investigation started? Answer. 593 00:34:19.650 --> 00:34:23.500 I did. Question. And how? Answer. Yes. He'd litigated other 594 00:34:23.519 --> 00:34:26.659 cases in the office. He was well-known. I'd met him socially. 595 00:34:27.059 --> 00:34:30.840 Miami's legal community is smaller than Washington. You get to 596 00:34:30.860 --> 00:34:33.820 know the attorneys. I also thought it was important, and 597 00:34:33.880 --> 00:34:36.889 I did, you know, I met with well-known defense attorneys 598 00:34:36.929 --> 00:34:39.530 from time to time just to see their assessment of 599 00:34:39.570 --> 00:34:42.349 how the office was proceeding. Question, did you have a 600 00:34:42.389 --> 00:34:47.409 social relationship with Mr. Black? Answer, I don't think so. Question, 601 00:34:47.429 --> 00:34:50.320 Gerald Lefcourt? Answer, I know the name. I did not 602 00:34:50.360 --> 00:34:54.610 know much beyond that. Question, Guy Lewis. Answer, so Guy Lewis, 603 00:34:54.690 --> 00:34:57.530 if the question is who he was, I assume that's 604 00:34:57.570 --> 00:35:01.150 your question? Question, so I understand that he was a 605 00:35:01.210 --> 00:35:04.219 former U.S. attorney and your predecessor in the Southern District 606 00:35:04.280 --> 00:35:07.420 of Florida. Is that right? Answer, I thought he was 607 00:35:07.440 --> 00:35:11.460 the predecessor, the one before me. Question, okay, so you've 608 00:35:11.480 --> 00:35:14.119 answered the first question. The second is whether you knew 609 00:35:14.199 --> 00:35:17.949 him at the time the investigation started. Answer, I knew him. 610 00:35:18.349 --> 00:35:20.289 I think he had served in Maine Justice for some 611 00:35:20.329 --> 00:35:24.559 period of time. We had interactions from time to time. Question. 612 00:35:24.840 --> 00:35:27.619 It's also my understanding that Mr. Lewis was close friends 613 00:35:27.659 -->

00:35:29.969 with Mr. Lurie in your office at the time. Is 614 00:35:30.010 --> 00:35:33.750 that right? Answer. I will accept your understanding. I don't 615 00:35:33.789 --> 00:35:39.070 have independent recollection. Question. Lillianne Sanchez. Answer. So she was 616 00:35:39.110 --> 00:35:41.619 in our office when I first started the office. She 617 00:35:41.679 --> 00:35:46.780 later left for private practice. Question. And represented Mr. Epstein. Answer. 618 00:35:47.219 --> 00:35:51.429 And represented Mr. Epstein. Question. And that was immediately after 619 00:35:51.489 --> 00:35:54.789 she left the office, if I'm correct. Answer. I can't 620 00:35:54.829 --> 00:35:59.269 speak to the timeline. Question. And she had been. Mr. 621 00:35:59.329 --> 00:36:03.599 I'm sorry, Menchel. Menchel. Question. Mr. Menchel's deputy at the 622 00:36:03.679 --> 00:36:08.000 office before she left. Is that right? Answer. That's correct. Question. 623 00:36:08.039 --> 00:36:10.179 And I understand she also dated him for a period 624 00:36:10.219 --> 00:36:14.440 of time. Answer. During the Office of Professional Responsibility Investigation, 625 00:36:14.840 --> 00:36:20.400 it came out that they had dated previously. Question, Jay Lefkowitz, 626 00:36:20.420 --> 00:36:23.699 we've spoken about. If I understood your testimony earlier, you 627 00:36:23.739 --> 00:36:26.780 know Mr. Lefkowitz from your time at Kirkland as an associate, 628 00:36:26.800 --> 00:36:31.179 is that correct? Answer, correct, in the mid-90s, I believe. Question, 629 00:36:31.519 --> 00:36:34.420 and please tell me if I'm mischaracterizing, but I understood 630 00:36:34.480 --> 00:36:37.860 you to say that you may have had an assignment 631 00:36:37.900 --> 00:36:42.320 from Mr. Lefkowitz. Answer, it was more than 20 years ago. 632 00:36:42.739 --> 00:36:45.159 I don't recall working with him on something, but that 633 00:36:45.199 --> 00:36:47.949 doesn't mean that in the course of being a young associate, 634 00:36:48.230 --> 00:36:52.130 You don't get an assignment from a partner. Did you 635 00:36:52.170 --> 00:36:55.090 have any contact with Mr. Lefkowitz between the time you 636 00:36:55.130 --> 00:36:59.130 left Kirkland and the inception of the Epstein investigation? Answer. 637 00:36:59.429 --> 00:37:02.530 So he was in the Bush administration in a White 638 00:37:02.570 --> 00:37:04.940 House role. From time to time, we may have had 639 00:37:05.059 --> 00:37:08.340 some info to contact. I don't recall what the White 640 00:37:08.360 --> 00:37:11.119 House role he was in. Question. I understand that he 641 00:37:11.159 --> 00:37:15.400 was the former general counsel of OMB under President George W. Bush. 642 00:37:16.159 --> 00:37:19.420 Is that consistent with your understanding? Again, I remember a 643 00:37:19.460 --> 00:37:22.059 White House role. If you looked him up, you have 644 00:37:22.119 --> 00:37:25.159 more information at this point than I do. Question, Ken

645 00:37:25.179 --> 00:37:27.579 Starr is also at Kirkland. I believe you said that 646 00:37:27.619 --> 00:37:30.849 you knew Mr. Starr from Kirkland. Is that right? Answer, 647 00:37:31.250 --> 00:37:33.070 so I did work with the case. It was a 648 00:37:33.110 --> 00:37:36.469 Supreme Court. It was a full Supreme Court matter, and 649 00:37:36.510 --> 00:37:38.150 I did work with him on that. I was a 650 00:37:38.170 --> 00:37:41.690 junior associate on the team. Question, and Mr. Starr, of course, 651 00:37:41.769 --> 00:37:45.780 is the former Clinton-Whitewater special prosecutor, and that was prior 652 00:37:45.820 --> 00:37:51.309 to your tenure at Kirkland. Is my chronology correct? Again, 653 00:37:51.409 --> 00:37:53.730 did you have any contact with Mr. Starr between the 654 00:37:53.769 --> 00:37:58.159 time you left Kirkland and the inception of the Epstein investigation? Answer, 655 00:37:58.199 --> 00:38:00.199 if I could go back, I'm not sure your chronology 656 00:38:00.260 --> 00:38:03.079 is correct because I remember that Mr. Starr was out 657 00:38:03.099 --> 00:38:05.360 of the office quite a bit while I was at 658 00:38:05.400 --> 00:38:08.619 Kirkland working on some matters. So if it wasn't that matter, 659 00:38:09.099 --> 00:38:15.250 it would have been another similar non-Kirkland special assignment matter. Question, okay. Answer. 660 00:38:15.510 --> 00:38:17.309 And I think your second question was, did I have 661 00:38:17.349 --> 00:38:21.170 contact with him? Again, he's a well-known Washington figure. I'm 662 00:38:21.210 --> 00:38:22.889 sure I would have come into contact with him at 663 00:38:22.929 --> 00:38:26.750 some event, at some point. Question. We spoke about Alan Dershowitz. 664 00:38:27.050 --> 00:38:31.760 Jack Goldberger. Answer. Yes. Question. Do you know Mr. Goldberger? Answer. 665 00:38:31.820 --> 00:38:34.420 Not to my recollection. Question. Are you aware that he 666 00:38:34.460 --> 00:38:39.639 represented Mr. Epstein? Answer. I am. Not based on independent recollection, 667 00:38:39.900 --> 00:38:43.860 but I've obviously reviewed material. Question, it's my understanding that Mr. 668 00:38:43.900 --> 00:38:47.079 Goldberger's law partner at the time of the state's investigation 669 00:38:47.519 --> 00:38:50.750 into Mr. Epstein was married to the assistant state attorney 670 00:38:51.070 --> 00:38:54.289 who was handling the Epstein case. And that once Mr. 671 00:38:54.369 --> 00:38:57.750 Epstein retained Mr. Goldberger, the assistant state attorney was removed 672 00:38:57.769 --> 00:39:00.429 from the case on the basis of a conflict of interest. 673 00:39:00.829 --> 00:39:03.969 Did you become aware of that? Answer, I have read that. 674 00:39:04.409 --> 00:39:06.349 I don't recall if I became aware of that 20 675 00:39:06.349 --> 00:39:12.170 years ago. Question, next name, Martin Weinberg. Do you know Mr. Weinberg? Answer. Again, 676 00:39:12.190 --> 00:39:15.869 I don't know him, but I recognize the name. Question. 677 00:39:15.889 --> 00:39:19.500 Do you recognize him as one of Epstein's attorneys? Answer. 678 00:39:19.579 --> 00:39:22.900 I will accept that assertion. Question. Getting close to the 679 00:39:22.920 --> 00:39:27.230 end of the list, but the next name is Joe Whitley. Answer. Yes. Question. 680 00:39:27.250 --> 00:39:29.969 Do you know Mr. Whitley? Answer. I do. He was 681 00:39:30.079 --> 00:39:32.900 I believe, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, 682 00:39:33.380 --> 00:39:36.480 I believe, and was in private practice by this time. Question, 683 00:39:36.539 --> 00:39:39.480 it's my understanding that he also served as acting U.S. 684 00:39:39.780 --> 00:39:44.969 Associate Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush. Is that 685 00:39:45.030 --> 00:39:49.559 consistent with your understanding? Answer, I don't remember. Question, And 686 00:39:49.619 --> 00:39:52.860 it's also my understanding that Mr. Whitley joined the legal 687 00:39:52.880 --> 00:39:56.119 team after the NPA was signed. Is that right? Answer. 688 00:39:56.239 --> 00:40:00.090 I'll accept your assertion. Question. And finally, I don't have 689 00:40:00.130 --> 00:40:02.869 a name, but I noted that the OPR report notes 690 00:40:02.889 --> 00:40:06.690 that the former principal deputy chief of the child exploitation 691 00:40:07.070 --> 00:40:10.460 and obscenity section or CEOs, as you've been referring to it, 692 00:40:10.849 --> 00:40:13.690 joined the defense team after the NPA was signed. Were 693 00:40:13.710 --> 00:40:17.010 you aware of that? Answer. I don't recall being aware 694 00:40:17.050 --> 00:40:19.840 of that, but I've read it in the report. Question, 695 00:40:20.090 --> 00:40:23.889 do you know who that individual is? Answer, I do not. Question, 696 00:40:23.909 --> 00:40:27.650 so that's obviously a somewhat substantial list. Answer, I believe 697 00:40:27.670 --> 00:40:31.909 I called it an army. Question, an army seems apt. 698 00:40:32.429 --> 00:40:35.110 It's typical for there to be, you know, movement between 699 00:40:35.159 --> 00:40:38.260 DOJ and private legal practice, sort of the prominence of 700 00:40:38.300 --> 00:40:41.579 these individuals, as well as the closeness to their relationship 701 00:40:41.599 --> 00:40:44.739 with certain people in your office, both personally and in 702 00:40:44.800 --> 00:40:47.960 terms of the closeness and the time to their tenures 703 00:40:48.059 --> 00:40:52.059 in your office. from your standpoint, seemed somewhat exceptional. Did 704 00:40:52.099 --> 00:40:54.820 you ever have any concerns about that? Answer, at the 705 00:40:54.840 --> 00:40:56.780 time we were, there was clearly a bit of a 706 00:40:56.820 --> 00:40:59.659 pattern here, right? And everyone from my perspective talked to 707 00:40:59.699 --> 00:41:03.570 the ethics folks. Everything was disclosed, to my understanding, at 708 00:41:03.610 --> 00:41:05.909 that time, and

something that we had to be very 709 00:41:05.949 --> 00:41:08.909 careful about, because on top of that, there were instances 710 00:41:09.170 --> 00:41:12.969 where he attempted to recuse our prosecutors. A defendant doesn't 711 00:41:13.010 --> 00:41:16.070 go to recuse prosecutors simply by hiring people that are 712 00:41:16.110 --> 00:41:19.380 associated with them, or else the criminal justice system breaks down, 713 00:41:19.739 --> 00:41:22.570 because wealthy people can just hire armies and get rid 714 00:41:22.610 --> 00:41:26.989 of the most experienced prosecutors. And so? Yes, we were 715 00:41:27.050 --> 00:41:29.710 aware of it. We, I believe, managed it. We acted 716 00:41:29.750 --> 00:41:33.690 entirely appropriately. The Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed all that, 717 00:41:33.989 --> 00:41:37.199 and they found no impropriety. They found no improper influence. 718 00:41:37.639 --> 00:41:41.340 They found that everyone acted as they should have. Question, 719 00:41:41.460 --> 00:41:44.159 but to be more specific about the concerns, so you 720 00:41:44.199 --> 00:41:49.710 mentioned the prospect of necessitating recusal. Answer, yes. Question, is 721 00:41:49.750 --> 00:41:52.409 that the inquiry that the ethics office engaged in that 722 00:41:52.429 --> 00:41:57.050 you just described? Answer, no. The ethics office engaged in 723 00:41:57.070 --> 00:42:00.570 a full review of everyone's relationships with prior attorneys, and 724 00:42:00.610 --> 00:42:03.449 they went person by person in this OPR report and 725 00:42:03.510 --> 00:42:06.739 found that there was no impropriety, no improper influence, and 726 00:42:06.760 --> 00:42:10.500 no favoritism. Question, where in the OPR report does it 727 00:42:10.519 --> 00:42:14.659 conclude that? Answer, I believe there is an entire section 728 00:42:15.139 --> 00:42:19.730 beginning out of page 140. beginning on page 140, proceeding through, 729 00:42:19.750 --> 00:42:23.550 it looks like, page 169. Question, so that section speaks 730 00:42:23.570 --> 00:42:26.110 to the motivations of the attorneys in your office in 731 00:42:26.130 --> 00:42:29.789 negotiating the MPA, if I understand it correctly. I think 732 00:42:29.849 --> 00:42:33.150 I'm asking more specifically about concerns about the closeness of 733 00:42:33.190 --> 00:42:36.469 the ties between Mr. Epstein's attorneys and their ability to 734 00:42:36.510 --> 00:42:41.360 potentially influence staff in your office. Whether it's MPA itself, 735 00:42:42.219 --> 00:42:44.900 or meetings, or just access in general, was that a 736 00:42:44.940 --> 00:42:48.480 concern that was ever raised? Answer, I believed all of 737 00:42:48.579 --> 00:42:51.440 us were aware and had discussions with the Ethics Council 738 00:42:51.900 --> 00:42:54.320 and it was known by the office. And you know, 739 00:42:54.619 --> 00:42:56.780 all of us proceeded in the way that we thought 740 00:42:56.820 --> 00:43:01.159 was correct and professional. Question, do you remember specific conversations 741 00:43:01.280 --> 00:43:04.179 with the Ethics Council? Answer, I believe the Office of 742 00:43:04.219 --> 00:43:08.440 Professional Responsibility talks about how various individuals consulted with them. 743 00:43:09.019 --> 00:43:11.559 In my case, it was publicly known that I had 744 00:43:11.619 --> 00:43:14.099 worked at Kirkland and there was no concern at the 745 00:43:14.119 --> 00:43:16.679 time and there was no concern found by the office. 746 00:43:17.070 --> 00:43:20.280 a professional responsibility. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up 747 00:43:20.300 --> 00:43:22.639 right here, and in the next episode dealing with the topic, 748 00:43:22.840 --> 00:43:25.309 we're going to pick up where we left off. All 749 00:43:25.329 --> 00:43:27.510 of the information that goes with this episode can be 750 00:43:27.530 --> 00:43:29.280 found in the description box.