EFTA00009229

Page 20
1 A Sure. That's why I said in a typical --
2 Q Okay.
3 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 --
EFTA00009248

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.
EFTA00009249

Page 22
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
EFTA00009250

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
EFTA00009251

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?
EFTA00009252

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 But at that high level?
7 A Correct.
8 All right. The department set up in 2006 a PSC
9 program, a Project Safe Childhood program --
10 A Correct.
11 -- focused on internet child pornography, and you
12 appointed as your first PSC --
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 --
EFTA00009253

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?
EFTA00009254

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
EFTA00009255

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
EFTA00009257

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

PaGe
the case and why resolve it, but why with a two year state
2 plea? What's the --
3 A And so --
4 -- overview?
5 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 --
EFTA00009260

Page 33
1 Q -- some of that.
2 A -- I noticed.
3 Q And by the way, my colleagues, we're all in this
4 boat together. So, they're going to feel free to --
5 A I know.
6 Q -- chime in --
7 A Yeah.
8 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
EFTA00009261

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
EFTA00009262

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?
EFTA00009263

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 A Km-hmm.
12 Q -- and her first at that time criminal chief --
13 A Right.
14 Q -- but sort of acting First Assistant
15 was because she was afraid of political pressure that
16 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.
EFTA00009264

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
EFTA00009265

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
EFTA00009266

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 , the original forwarded e-
22 mail is from copying , 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
EFTA00009267