EFTA00009116

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

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

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

Page 382
1 there is a legal comparison, right?
2 The U.S. Attorney in Chicago could have stepped in
3 and said, whether or not the state takes this plea, we may
4 investigate this federally, and sort of stopped that plea
5 from going forward, or at least put a wrench in those gears,
6 or the U.S. Attorney could have pursued that under petite
7 policy, and did not.
8 And so, our stepping into this sort of reminded me
9 of how many times cases that are viewed as a manifest
10 injustice do occur, and yet the federal government does not
11 step in? And the fact that we stepped in has been construed
12 as, this became a federal prosecution, and sort of going --
13 going to -- is it or --
14
15 A sort of question earlier, the
16 distinction between -- it was not a manifest injustice versus
17 this was the right outcome, is something that I think has
18 been lost in the coverage of this matter.
19 I think a second issue that has been lost in the
20 coverage of this matter is, there are references to Prince
21 Andrew, and Alex Dershowitz and Governor Richardson and Bill
22 Clinton, and thing happening in London, and the so called
23 Lolita Express where things may have happened on airplanes.
24 And so, this is viewed from the public as this international
25 matter, where the victims were local, the actions, to my
EFTA00009198

Page 383
1 recollection, was local.
2 And so, the distinction between this Palm Beach
3 incident and what the media likes to cover, which is, you
4 know, was, you know, did Mr. Epstein force a minor to have
5 sexual relations with Prince Andrew, is a very different fact
6 pattern both in terms of the public perception of forcing a
7 minor to have sex with a third party, that they have -- you
8 know, that is outside the solicitation context.
9 It's sort of -- I'm travelling with these women,
and forcing them to have sex, versus a more local matter
11 that -- I don't want to say solicitation, because I think
12 we've covered that, but that some may view as that.
13 Q Mm-hmm.
14 A And I think those are two major elements --
15 Q Right.
A -- that have been lost in the coverage.
17 Q The case has been criticized as having involved
18 improper influences, or favors, or payments that affected
19 decisions that were made within your office, and you're aware
20 of all those --
21
22 Q -- allegations as well. In connection with this
23 case. Were you yourself ever offered any -- any payments, or
24 any favors, or any promises or job assistance or anything
25 like that --
EFTA00009199

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

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

Page 386
1
2 Q What do you think about the media's treatment of
3 the line assistant, =ME?
4 A I think she -- I wish her name wouldn't be in the
5 media. You know, to some extent, U.S. Attorneys, when they
6 take the job, realize that part of their job is to take the
7 slings and arrows.
8 You know, there are instances when AUSAs were
9 accused of misconduct, and -- and I always sort of felt that
10 that was -- I don't want to say below the belt, but that's
11 not why they take the pay cuts that they take to go into
12 federal service, and you know, I think the media coverage of
13 this case has been unfair, and has lost a lot of the
14 complexities.
15 It's not surprising, because I mean, here, we're
16 talking about -- about a lot of those complexities, and it
17 takes a fairly sophisticated discussion, but I think it's
18 particularly unfair on
19 Q In your attorney's written response, he used the
20 term relentless for -- to characterize the team of lawyers --
21 the defense lawyers, and in that Daily Beast article that
22 you --
23 F.•
24 Q -- wrote, you referred to the yearlong assault on
25 the prosecution and the prosecutors, you noted that the
EFTA00009202

Page 387
1 defense was, "More aggressive than any of which I or the
2 prosecutors in my office had previously encountered." You
3 noted that the defense investigated prosecutors and tried to
4 disqualify two, and I believe that those two are
5 and . Is that --
6 A That is correct.
7 Q All right.
A Yeah.
9 Q And you also noted, or asserted that there were
10 investigations into the family lives of individual
11 prosecutors, accusations of bias and misconduct against
12 individual prosecutors, and even the threat of a book on
13 prosecutorial zeal. Do you still regard that
14 characterization as accurate?
15 A I do. You know, whether I would use those same
16 words now, we can spend a lot of time talking about it, and
17 I'd want --
18 Q All right.
19 A -- to think about, but I do think that's accurate.
20 I think this really was a razed earth type of matter, and in
21 the office's typical interactions, the prosecutors know they
22 have to come back to the office. And so, they would not
23 sorry, not the prosecutors. It's getting late, though. The
24 defense counsel.
25 And so, they would not -- it's not just the
EFTA00009203

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

Page 389
looking for personal peccadillos that provide a -- so,
was, to my recollection, she wasn't investigated. I tri
and I haven't encountered that in other cases.
I recall it -- at one point, they also looked in , and
family, and his background, and I thought that was
little out of line.
Q
12
14 Q
15 F.
:8
Q
EFTA00009205

A
tl
Ni
lilt
the point I was trying to convey is, this is
not a -- this is not typical behavior by defense counsel.
Q Did --
A And despite all this, my point was, despite all
this, we did not budge.
Q And again, that's not the focus of --
Right.
Q -- of this guestion.I
13
14
15
16 A
17
Q
19
Q All right. Are there any other examples where
defense counsel came to you that have not otherwise been
21 addressed with --
Q -- allegations about someone --
25 A I'm hesitating --
EFTA00009206

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

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

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

Page 394
1 A I'm a big believer, and I had good relationships
2 with the defense bar. I think lawyers can disagree and not
3 be disagreeable, and we would be a better profession if we
4 all learned to do that.
5 Q So would the world.
6 A Yes.
7 Q There is an -- sort of investigative journalist
8 author named
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you know that name?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Did you ever speak with her?
13 A So, she was the recipient of the do -- to whom it
14 may concern letter at the Daily Beast.
15 Q Oh, really?
16 A Yes.
17 Q All right. All right. Thank you. I didn't -- we
18 didn't know that. Did she comment back to you on it?
19 A It was a long time ago. I don't -- I don't recall.
20 Q So, she wrote a book called trafficking. Have you
21 read that --
22 A She did --
23 Q -- about this case?
24 A She did. I haven't read it recently, but I read it
25 a while ago.
EFTA00009210

Pane 395
1 Q And she says in that book that you told her a few
2 years after the NPA was signed that as she writes, "He felt
incapable of going up against those eight powerful attorneys.
He felt his career was at stake." Did you say that to her?
5 A Not to my recollection, and what I tried to do was,
6 for the record, provide this letter to her, and the purpose
7 of this letter was to say the exact opposite, which is -- and
8 you know, we have this -- you know, and she and the New York
9 Times, and I think the New York Times called it -- what --
10 what's the word? Like, apologia? Does anyone know what --
11 Q Apologia.
12 A Apologia.
13 Q It's a -- it's an --
14 A --
15 Q -- apology. It's a fancy way of saying --
16
17 Q -- you're --
18 A Ye4h.
19 Q -- explaining yourself.
20 A Yeah. I looked it up, and it's a little more
21 derogatory than explaining yourself, because I felt a need
22 Q Ma-ham.
23 A -- to look it up, but the New York Times called
24 this letter an apologia.
25 Q Ma-ham.
EFTA00009211

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

Page 397
1 is that the panoply, this pantheon of attorneys did not have
2 the influence on you that's alleged?
3 A And -- and the purpose of this letter was to say,
4 despite all this
Q Right.
O A -- we held firm. So, how can you say that there's
influence if we held firm?
Q So, the --
9 A And I would -- I would also -- I'm sorry.
10 Q No, no.
1 A I would also note, and I think we talked about
12 this, that those terms were developed before many of these
13 individuals came on board.
14 Q Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
15 A So, it's not like these terms were developed
16 because, oh, now these individuals are on board.
17 Q All right. And we haven't, of course, talked about
18 the whole work release issue, but --
19 R Yeah.
20 Q -- I think that speaks -- the record --
21 A Yeah.
22 Q -- speaks for itself on that.
23 A Yeah.
24 BY MS.
25 Q So, I'm not sure I'm clear. Did you have an
EFTA00009213

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