EFTA00009229

Page 40
1 heard about the Epstein investigation, I spoke with
2 about it. was not here."
3 said that she would back me up on the case,
4 but I knew what has happened to the state prosecution can
5 happen to the federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney's
6 Office isn't on board. So, I spoke with about the case,
7 and he spoke with Alex, and they gave the green light."
8 So, that -- that actually appears to be an initial
9 contact with that she's talking about prior to the
10 briefing of you, so, way early when the case first came in in
11 May of 2006. Do you recall being contacted or having a
12 conversation with --
13 A Mm-hmm.
14 -- about that case so early?
15 A Again, the early recollection, whenever -- whenever
16 it might have taken place, was I was made aware of the
17 matter. It seemed a reasonable matter to pursue, and that's
18 the level of detail that I recall.
19 Q So, if said back in the day that she got from
20 you all the green light, what did you understand her to be
21 being authorized to do -- authorize may be too strong a word,
22 but --
23 A So, to pursue -- to investigate -- to pursue --
24 Q Yeah.
25 A -- to someone, you know, I -- I'm speculating here,
EFTA00009268

Page 41
1 but there's a case, and they want to know, should we spend
2 our time on this? And the answer is it seems reasonable.
3 Sure.
4 Q Okay, and do you -- do you recall making that
5 explicit to her?
6 A I -- I don't, and -- and it wouldn't have been my
7 practice to -- to sort of make it explicit to -- yeah, go
8 spend your time, as opposed to, thank you for letting me
9 know, that sounds reasonable.
10 Q All right.
11 A And whatever, you know, details it looks like based
12 on Exhibit 1, there was subsequent follow up between her and
13 , or with her and the management team, and they said, you
14 know, go back, work on A, B, and C.
15 Q Do you know what was talking about
16 when she referred to something happening to a federal
17 prosecution if the U.S. Attorney is not on board? Had there
18 been a case in which you were not supportive of a particular
19 prosecution that was being proposed?
20 A None -- none that I recall, and -- and I knew that
21 what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a
22 federal prosecution if the U.S. Attorney's not on board. I
23 don't recall any federal prosecution that I wasn't supportive
24 of, at least in -- in this context.
25 Q What do you mean by this context?
, 1 1•111•1
EFTA00009269

Page 42
1 A It was my way of narrowing an answer so I didn't
2 spend the time to go through every office and every division.
3 For the most part, as I sit here, I'm sort of running through
4 each office. I don't recall any, and -- and if I could,
5 based on this -- on Exhibit 2, I'm not sure that she's
6 referring to a specific case as opposed to concerns that the
7 state prosecution started at point -- you know, with charges
8 that required jail time and ended up somewhere else, and it
9 may have been because management --
10 Q All right.
11 A -- wasn't.
12 Q But that's -- that's a current -- a reading of --
13 A Yeah.
14 Q -- this, rather --
15 A That -- that's my --
16 Q -- than a recollection?
17 A -- that's my reading, not --
18 Q All right. Based on the early description you got
19 of the case --
20 A Right.
21 Q -- did you have any idea how many victims were
22 involved?
23 A I did not.
24 Q Did you know what the name of the case was? What
25 the investigation's name was? You know, cases get names.
EFTA00009270

Page 43
1 A So, I know that based on review of the
2 correspondence, I may have known that then. I did not
3 independently recall that.
4 Q That being Operation Leap Year?
5 A Correct.
6 Q All right, and do you know where that comes from?
7 A I have -- well, I mean, other than February 20 --
8 yeah, I don't know.
9 Q Well, the original allegations that came in
10 involved 28 victims, and then subsequently advised that
11 she was uncovering more victims, so there were --
12 A Yeah.
13 Q -- over 30 victims.
14 A
15 Q Well over 30.
16 A I did not know that.
17 Q All right. You did not -- you -- as you sit here
18 today, you didn't know it?
19 A I don't recall knowing that.
20 Q But is it -- is it reasonable that the number of
21 victims would be one of the factors that you would have been
22 informed of at the time?
23 A I -- I don't know. I -- it all depends how
24 detailed that briefing was. Again, as a typical matter early
25 on, this is what is being done. I would trust my AUSAs and
EFTA00009271

Page 44
1 my management staff --
2 Q Right.
3 A -- to pursue it. It wouldn't be a, here are all
4 the facts associated with this case, just heads up. There is
5 a high profile case involving a very wealthy man abusing
6 young women, a state attorney is prosecuting, but you know,
7 there's dissatisfaction. I wanted to give you a heads up,
8 both to inform me, but also so that I'm aware in my
9 interactions with -- with other Palm Beach officials.
10 Q Okay. Based on whatever information you got at the
11 time, did you think that there was a federal interest to be
12 served by pursuing a federal prosecution potentially?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And what was that?
15 A So, the exploitation of young women.
16 Q Girls.
17 A Girls.
18 Q I want to be -- I want to be --
19 A Minors. Minor females.
20 Q All right. I -- you know, for a -- for a sort of a
21 glossary convention --
22 A Right.
23 Q -- that we are using is -- and we can use in this
24 interview, is girls --
25 A Right.
EFTA00009272

Page 45
1 Q -- for the victims who at the time of the conduct
2 were minors, and women, for those who were not, even though
3 the girls at a later time became age of --
4 A Fair.
5 Q -- majority.
6 A Fair.
7 Q Okay. So, here, we're really talking about the
8 girls --
9 A Okay.
10 Q -- who were victims.
11 A Yeah, yeah.
12 Q Okay.
13 A Girls, minor females. I just don't sometimes
14 that term is viewed differently. And so --
15 Q Right.
16 A Yeah, so the exploitation of girls or minor
17 females, and that certainly is an important federal interest.
18 Q Well, and is the number and the breadth of the
19 scheme -- the scope of the activity also a factor there? In
20 other words, it wasn't one or two on one or two occasions.
21 A So, there's several factors that probably go into
22 what's the federal interest. The acts, the sordidness of the
23 acts, the -- the number, the likelihood or the importance of
24 registration was important to my mind because that -- that
25 goes to future prevention to putting the community on notice.
EFTA00009273

Page 46
1 Q And were you aware that the individual in this
2 case, Epstein, also had homes in other districts, and that
3 there were -- it was an interstate activity on his part, the
4 interstate travel and so on?
5 A
6 MR. HERRON: I'm sorry, let me just -- we're still
7 in the original intake time frame --
8 MS. : Yes.
9 MR. HERRON: -- here?
10 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Again, for the intake time, I
11 can't I can't speak to the details, because I don't
12 remember what the extent of that -- that intake briefing.
13 BY MS.
14 Q But as i -- as I -- as i --
15 A Could I -- could I ask --
16 Q Yes.
17 A -- a question? Was there -- was there a clear
18 briefing as opposed to a heads up based on the record?
19 Q Yes. That came to Miami to conduct
20 a briefing of you and --
21 A Okay.
22 Q in order to tell you about this
23 case, and get from you
24 A Okay.
25 Q -- a green light --
EFTA00009274

Page 47
1 A
2 Q -- to proceed with it.
3 A I ask, because I recall an e-mail, and I don't know
4 what the time would have been, where she's coming to Miami,
5 and says, why don't you stop by my office first?
6 Q Right.
7 A And -- and -- and I keep -- I would -- I would
8 speculate that, why don't you stop by my office first is, why
9 don't you give me a bunch of details, and then we will walk
10 across to the U.S. Attorney --
11 Q Right.
12 A -- and fill him in, and so that would have been
13 almost a two-tiered discussion.
14 Q And is that --
15 A And I don't know if that -- if that -- the timeline
16 on that e-mail is when you say briefing.
17 Q Well, we are -- we are asking --
18 A
19 Q What it -- what it would --
20 A Yeah.
21
22 A I'm speaking just based on review of the record,
23 not based on recollection here.
24 Q All right. So, you have -- to be clear, you have
25 no recollection of any specific briefing in 2006?
EFTA00009275

Page 48
1 A I accept that I was made aware of the matter.
2 Q Okay.
3 A I can't say how or in what context or to what
4 degree of detail.
5 Q Or by whom?
6 A Or by whom. I knew the matter -- it's easier to
7 recollect at least for me what I knew as opposed to who told
8 me what.
9 Q All right. All right. At this point, would you
10 have had -- did you have -- if you -- at any point, did you
11 have any reservation about investigating and potentially
12 prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein, a reservation stemming from his
13 wealth, and reported standing in the community at all, and
14 influence?
15 A No, and we had prosecuted lots of influential folks
16 in the office. So, while he had wealth, it's not unusual --
17 UBS was in the office at the time. I mentioned several high
18 profile Palm Beach public corruption cases.
19 Q So, there was no concern about possible negative
20 blowback in the press or the community or even at Main
21 Justice if you went after someone like Jeffrey Epstein?
22 A There was no concern stemming from his wealth or
23 his status.
24 Q What would it have stemmed from?
25 A At some point, I think there was concerns regarding
EFTA00009276

Page 49
1 the -- the law, and we'll probably get into that. I alluded
2 to that earlier in the overview. I don't know if that would
3 have been developed this early on, but -- but that's not a
4 function of his wealth. That's a function of the fact
5 pattern.
6 Q Right. Right. Okay. So, as you mentioned petite
7 policy concerns, petite policy, petite policy, could you tell
8 us what your position was on the -- on the policy as it
9 applied in this case as you understood it from -- in the
10 beginning?
11 A So -- so, the policy, you know, on its face,
12 doesn't specifically apply. Based on Exhibit 1, I'm now
13 inferring, not recalling, it looks like either on her
14 own, or asked for a -- or, Mr. , asked for a
15 petite policy waiver memo to be prepared, in part on the
16 assumption that the state prosecution may or may not have
17 gone for it.
18 I don't know, but I know -- I do recall that early
19 on, this was unusual, because it had been -- he had been
20 arrested or arraigned. It was going forward on the part of
21 the state, and so here is the big bad federal government
22 stepping on a sovereign, you know, state, saying you're not
23 doing enough, and to my mind, when, you know, the whole idea
24 of the petite policy is to recognize that that estate has --
25 you know, is an independent entity, and that we should
EFTA00009277

Page 50
1 presume that what they're doing is correct, even if we don't
2 like the outcome, except in the most unusual of
3 circumstances.
4 Q And what kinds of -- well, so, the petite policy
5 exists because there's a recognition that there are cases
6 that are appropriately pursued. I mean, you were the head of
7 the civil rights division, after all.
8 A Correct, which is why I say except in the most
9 appropriate of circumstances.
10 Q Right.
11 A But let me add that based on this, I was
12 comfortable, you know, saying, let's go forward, because the
13 lack of jail time, you know, to use -- to use petite policy
14 language, a plea that did not include jail time or
15 registration would seem like a manifest injustice.
16 Q All right. So, did you have any doubt that you'd
17 get a waiver if you applied for one?
18 A I'm not -- so -- so, I'm now speculating. I don't
19 recall, but I'm not sure I would have said, is there a doubt
20 that I'd get a waiver as opposed to, is this something I feel
21 comfortable doing, or not? And --
22 Q And this being the prosecution, or this being
23 the -- applying for a waiver?
24 A Applying for a waiver. And so, you know, either
25 main justice gives it or doesn't give it. That doesn't mean
EFTA00009278

Page 51
1 you don't apply for it if you think it's the right thing to
2 do.
3 So, for example, in the UBS case, which was one of
4 our big tax, you know, prosecutions, we asked for a Bank of
5 Nova Scotia --
6 Q ME-hum.
7 A -- authorization to the Bank of Nova Scotia
8 subpoena, and I didn't think Main Justice would -- you know,
9 I pushed really hard, and I got into the weeds in that case
for that purpose, but I still thought, let's go for it, and
we did, and Main Justice didn't give in to it, and that's
12 okay. That's how it works.
13 Q Okay. So, they denied that request?
14 A They denied that request, and I say that as an
15 example of -- as a typical matter, I don't think what's main
16 justice going to say, as opposed to how do we how should
17 we approach this matter?
18 Q I don't understand about what you mean by, how
19 should we approach this matter.
20 A So, honestly, how do I -- how do I explain this?
21 So, I think there's a difference in saying, let me predict
22 how main justice will come out, and follow that prediction,
23 versus, folks, what do you all think? Okay. If we're
24 comfortable with this, let's write it up, and let's see what
25 Main Justice does.
EFTA00009279

Page 52
1 One is trying to predict what folks in this
2 building are going to think. Another one is trying to
3 predict -- another one is saying, what do we in Miami think,
4 and then let main justice figure it out.
Q And which is the approach you typically took?
6 A And my point is the approach that I typically took
7 is, what do we think, and let main justice give it a thumbs
8 up or a thumbs down.
9 Q All right, and in this case, did you do that with
10 regard to the petite policy?
11 A So, in this case, we didn't get that far in that we
12 didn't have to submit to DOJ.
13 Q MM-hmm.
14 A But -- but we were approaching it not based on what
15 main justice was going to think, but what do we feel is the
16 right outcome in this office.
17 Q So, as I understand, the bottom line is that you
18 didn't as I hear you, I believe you're saying that you
19 didn't stand down, or in any way cease or limit pursuing this
20 case on petite policy grounds. You pursued it as you -- as
21 you would --
22 A So, we went forward with the matter, although there
23 were petite policy concerns in the background. So -- so
24 you're setting this up as a binary -- as a -- did -- was it a
25 fact -- as a binary, you did not limit yourself on petite
EFTA00009280

Page 53
1 policy grounds, and I'm pushing back a little bit, because I
2 don't think it's, it's part or it's not, as opposed to when
3 you look at a case, there are all sorts of factors, and it is
4 a factor in how you think of a matter going forward.
BY MS.
Q If you had those petite policy concerns -- you or
members of your staff?
8 A I would say a combination of me and my management
9 staff.
BY MS.
11 Q Who? Who?
A I can't -- I can't recreate --
3 Q But who are you dealing with on this case?
14 A Primarily, it would be my first assistant and
15 criminal chief as I typically -- so, there is, you know, to
16 sort of put it in main justice terms, you know, a line
17 attorney has a deputy section chief and a section chief and a
18 DAG and an AAG, and the AAG usually deals with the section
19 chief, or the DAG. And so, I was dealing with my first
20 assistant and my crim chief.
21 Q Right, and they were there in Miami.
22 A And they were there in Miami.
23 Q And by the way, first line
24 supervisor was
25 A rect.
EFTA00009281

Page 54
1 Q Do you know why she was not actively participating
2 in this chain of command?
3 A I noticed that in the correspondence, and I
4 couldn't speak to that.
5 Q All right.
6 A But the -- but it goes to the point that if you
look at the -- she reported to , who reported to
8 who reported to who reported to . And so, as a
9 typical matter, I tried to empower my first assistant and my
10 criminal chief and my office heads and work through them, not
11 bypass them.
12 Q In this particular case with regard either to the
13 petite policy --
14 A Right.
15 Q -- or any other aspect, was there anyone other than
16 that group of five, if you will, in that chain --
17 A Correct.
18 Q -- from you down to through
19
20 A Right.
21 Q -- and that you were dealing with?
22 A I can't recall. I -- I can -- I can say as a
23 general matter, it would not be unusual for me to walk
24 down -- walk down the hall and talk to someone that I trust
25 and say, hey, I've got this fact pattern. What do you think?
EFTA00009282

Page 55
1 Q Do you recall ever doing that in connection with
2 this case?
3 A I -- I don't recall the specific briefings or who I
4 talked to. I'm just saying as a general matter that there
5 are folks on my -- on the eighth floor that were in
6 management that I would often just walk down the hall, and --
7 Q But do you recall doing that --
8 A I don't --
9 Q -- in this case?
10 A I don't recall.
11 Q Okay. So, we shared with you in Exhibit 3 a pretty
12 lively exchange between and
13 You didn't -- we have no reason to believe you saw this
14 before, but it makes some representations about you, and
15 that's why we brought it to your attention.
16 A Okay.
17 Q Do you recall this e-mail exchange?
18 A I don't recall the e-mail exchange.
19 Q I mean, you --
20 A But I --
21 Q -- didn't see it then. Do you recall having read
22 it before today?
23 A I recall reviewing it, yes.
24 Q All right. Okay. So, starting from the end,
25 using Blackberry, which is a little
EFTA00009283

Page 56
1 confusing to begin with -- notifies. = that -- of a -- of
2 a particular conversation he had with one of the defense
3 attorneys. At this point, what I want to do is draw your
4 attention to the -- the comment, and his response, and we're
5 looking at page --
6 A Page --
7 Q -- three.
8 A -- page three.
9 Q So, in the third paragraph --
10 A Yeah.
11 Q -- "it was made clear to you by the U.S. Attorney
12 and the first assistant from the time when you were first
13 authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had
14 concerns about taking the case because of petite policy and a
15 number of legal issues." And then later he says that, "You
16 were never given authorization by anyone to seek an
17 indictment in this case."
18 And -- close quote -- and then on the first page,
19 presents her version of that original contact
20 with you, meeting with you, at the bottom of the page.
21 Halfway through the last paragraph, she says, "My
22 recollection of the original meeting with Alex and is
23 quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I
24 summarized the case and the state attorney's office handling
25 of it."
EFTA00009284

Page 57
1 acknowledged that we needed to do work to
2 collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I
3 noted the time and month," -- that -- I'm sorry, "I noted the
4 time and money that would be required for an investigation.
5 I said I was willing to invest time and the FBI was willing
6 to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the end of
7 it," -- "to the end, and then have the office be intimidated
8 by the high powered lawyers. I was assured that would not
9 happen." Can you tell us which version of that initial --
10 which version --
11 A Right.
12 Q -- is correct?
13 A So, again, I don't remember that initial briefing,
14 so I can't tell you which version is correct. I would also
15 say that it's possible neither version is correct and that
16 there's a little bit of truth -- now I'm just speculating --
17 Q All right.
18 A that there's a little bit of truth in either
19 one, because it's certainly possible to say, I hear you,
20 righteous case, go forward and investigate, work on the
21 federal nexus, which is what Exhibit 3 is saying, go work on
22 the federal nexus and find evidence for the federal nexus.
23 But we have concerns about petite policy and legal matters,
24 so there's a lot of work to be done.
25 Q So, what kind of a direction does that amount to
EFTA00009285

Page 58
1 for the line AUSA? What's her job then?
2 A So, the job would then be to go back and
3 investigate, and develop facts and report back.
4 Q And if she developed enough facts, and supportive
5 law to present proposed prosecution?
6 A Right.
7 Q Okay.
8 A And so -- so, a lot of times in this he said, she
9 said, there's a little bit of truth to both sides of the
10 discussion. I'm just -- I'm just saying as a general matter,
11 I wouldn't -- your questions are sometimes either or, and
12 sometimes --
13 Q Right.
14 A -- it can be a combination of both.
15 Q All right, and -- but in fact you don't recall?
16 A But I'm speculating.
17 Q All right. Is there anything in either of those
18 that two accounts -- two versions that you say didn't happen,
19 couldn't happen?
20 A I can't, because I don't recall it. I can't --
21 Q Okay.
22 A -- speak to that. I would speculate that there's
23 probably a little bit of truth on both sides that -- and if
24 you read it closely, you'll see that acknowledges the
25 need to work on a federal nexus. So, that goes to, you know,
EFTA00009286

Page 59
1 where or, Mr. la I'm sorry, I'm calling -- I'm
2 using first names.
3 Q Its' all right.
4 A So, I'm going to just start --
4 This is an informal interview.
6 A I'm going to just start using first names. I don't
7 mean that disrespectfully -- where, you know, Illlisays, you
8 know, because of petite policy and legal issues, and is
9 acknowledging the legal issues, because she's saying needed
10 work to do to collect evidence establishing the federal
11 nexus.
12 Q All right.
13 A So --
14 Q Yeah.
15 A So, they're not as inconsistent as presented
16 Q All right.
17 A -- arguably.
18 Q Sack in 2006, in this Exhibit No. 1,
19 tells you in his e-mail that the indictment target date is
20 August 25, 2006.
21 A Mm-hmm.
22 Q In other words, very shortly --
23 A Right.
24 Q -- thereafter, within a month or so. Do you know
25 why the line AUSA, , was keen on getting the
EFTA00009287