EFTA00009229

federal case against Epstein brought on a fairly -- on a
2 quick basis?
3 A So, I can't speak to that, and -- and can I
4 I ask, based on your record, was that that the -- was that
5 the state indictment target date, or was that --
6 Q He already --
A -- a federal --
B Q -- Epstein had already been indicted and arraigned
on the --
10 A Right.
11 Q -- indictment, so that's the federal.
12 A So -- so, that's --
1:
Q That's talking about a federal indictment.
14 A All right.
15 Q The point --
16 A Correct.
17 Q -- is that early on --
18 A Right.
19 Q -- the investigative team, the FBI --
20 A Right.
21 Q -- and were hot to trot to get
22 this --
23 A Right.
24 Q -- case moving from a federal standpoint. That may
25 well have been quite unrealistic given --
EFTA00009288

Page 61
1 A Correct.
2 Q -- all of the issues that we've been discussing,
3 but the question is, do you know why there was some urgency?
4 A I haven't the slightest idea. When was it -- when
5 was it initially brought to the office?
6 Q It was brought to the office in May of --
7 A Right.
8 Q -- 2006.
9 A That -- that would be a really, really fast
10 timeline.
11 Q Right. So, the question is, aspirational though it
12 may have been, there was a hope --
13 A
14 Q -- to get it done quickly.
15 A Right.
16 Q So, the question is, can you think of factors that
17 would have led a prosecutor to want to pursue --
18 A I --
19 Q -- this quickly?
20 A I don't recall. I can speculate that was
21 very hard charging and wanted to do a lot, and --
22 Q Was that your experience of her?
23 A So, based on this, I see, you know, so, Exhibit 2
24 is, you know
25 Q Excuse me, would -- but just from your memory, is
EFTA00009289

Page 62
1 that your recollection of hove operated? Hard charging?
2 A Yeah. I'd say -- so, a lot of really good
3 prosecutors are hard charging. That's --
4 Q All right.
5 A -- that's part of the job description.
6 Q Okay.
7 A And so, yes.
8 Q Okay. Did -- so, in the child sex offender
9 context, are you familiar with a -- the belief on the part of
10 people who do that kind of case, as did and
11 others in your office -- that those offenders typically don't
12 stop offending, even after somebody's onto them? So that
13 there was a concern that he -- that in this case, Jeffrey
14 Epstein might be continuing to offend, and therefore getting
15 him off the streets was --
16 A Right.
17 Q -- a priority?
18 A I have heard that discussed recently in the media.
19 I don't recollect that back in -- part of a discussion back
20 in 2006.
21 Q All right. Okay. Do you recall that
22 -- and this is just a, do you recall --
23 A Mm-hmm.
24 Q -- that she periodically would give you in that
25 early period of 2006, updates -- written updates?
EFTA00009290

Page 63
1 A I don't.
2 Q Did you think that it was appropriate for a line
3 AUSA to be shooting e-mails updating on a case that was under
4 investigation directly to you and your first assistant?
5 A It was unusual, and -- and so, so, did I think of
6 a -- look, I can't reconstruct what I would have thought, but
7 you know, you're asking not just what did I know, but what
8 would I have thought 12 years ago.
9 But I can say that based on general practice, it
10 would have been unusual, and my best guess as to how I would
11 have reacted would have been, hey, , this is unusual, is
12 the chain being fully informed? Are feathers being --
13 Q Right.
14 A ruffled? Figure it out, because, you know, you
15 asked me early on to characterize qualities. I think
16 one of the things that I said was he was very good at
17 smoothing things --
18 Q MW-hmm.
19 A -- over. And sort of the interaction, because he
20 was respected, and so I might say, that's kind of unusual.
21 Go figure it out.
22 Q But you wouldn't necessarily jump that chain
23 yourself, and be --
24 A
25 Q -- in direct communication?
EFTA00009291

Page 64
1 A I tended not to --
2 Q Okay.
3 A -- do that.
4 BY
5 Q Would she have sent this to you -- something
6 unusual, if she thought that this was a case that you wanted
7 to be involved in?
8 A Even in -- even in those, I tried to be, as a
9 general matter, fairly sensitive to the chain, because I had
10 found that if you start jumping the chain too much, even if
11 you become informed, managers feel, you know, out of -- out
12 of the loop, and that's not -- that's not conducive to sort
13 of allowing them to do their job of supervising. It's a big
14 enough office, you have to empower your folks to do their
15 jobs.
16 Q So the concern on your part would not be that she
17 was communicating directly to you, but that as long as all of
18 the chain was informed as well?
19 A Yeah. I mean, if you're -- if you're
20 or you know, if you're , or you know, don't you want to
21 talk to the line attorney before the line attorney talks to
22 your boss?
23 And so, it's not just informed, but it's respecting
24 your supervisor. And it's a difficult balance, because often
25 really good AUSAs are also the ones that, you know, just want
EFTA00009292

Page 65
1 to get things done.
2 BY MS.
3 Q Did you have any reason to believe during this
4 investigative phase that ME was not pursuing
5 this case -- this investigation adequately, appropriately,
6 and fully?
7 A No, I did not.
8 Q Did you --
9 A Not to my recollection.
10 Q Did you feel that she did not have appropriate
11 oversight?
12 A Not to my recollection.
13 Q Okay. Do you -- did you feel that she had any
14 resource problem? That is, did she have, as far as you knew,
15 sufficient resources available to pursue her investigation?
16 A To my recollection, yes, I noted her early -- you
17 know, I noted more recently the e-mail where -- you know,
18 that was shared with me by about resource concerns, and
19 I would just note that I would allow the management chain to
20 figure that out.
21 Q All right. Were you -- did you at any point
22 consider, based on what you then knew, expanding the scope of
23 the investigation? Did you ever suggest or propose that
24 instead of simply looking at Epstein's conduct in West Palm
25 Beach vis a vis these girls, that the federal authorities
EFTA00009293

Page 66
1 could use their resources to look at other aspects of
2 Epstein's activities?
3 A So, I -- so, I think it's important to take a step
4 back, and I was aware of any number of cases going on in the
office, and based on what that stage of case was at, I would
6 get more involved for a time.
7 It wasn't my practice to direct AUSAs in how they
8 should investigate, or what the scope of a case investigation
9 should be. They -- the Miami office, before I got there, and
10 after I left, had a reputation for knowing their stuff. It's
11 a large office. It's got good people. I would assume that
12 AUSAs and their management would follow their natural leads.
13 Q All right. Were you aware that during this
14 period -- and by this period, I'm talking about the
15 investigative period from the time that the case came in in
16 mid-2006 --
17 A Right.
18 Q -- up until May 1 when put forth
19 her pros memo --
20 A Right.
21 Q -- and proposed indictment. During that sort of
22 ten month period, or almost a year, were you aware that
23 defense counsel for Epstein were reaching out to
24 and to to pitch their view of how the
25 case --
EFTA00009294

Page 67
1 A Right.
2 Q -- should proceed?
3 A So, I don't have a specific recollection of who
4 reached out at what time. I would assume as a general matter
that defense counsel -- defense counsel were clearly involved
6 before the case came to the office. and so, I would assume
7 that defense counsel would remain involved while the office
8 was investigating. I say that not based on independent
9 recollection, but --
10 Q Right.
11 A -- why would they stop being involved?
12 Q And is it in your experience as a U.S. Attorney,
13 was it common or uncommon for defense counsel to approach the
14 line prosecutor and supervisor to make whatever pitch they
15 want with respect to a prosecution?
16 A Fairly common.
17 Q All right, and was it also common for those
18 approaches to be entertained? In other words, for the line
19 AUSA and supervisor --
20 A Right.
21 Q -- to meet with defense counsel?
22 A As a -- as a general matter, yeah.
23 Q And did you view that as appropriate?
24 A As a general matter, it was typical. It happened
25 before I got there, and is probably happening now.
EFTA00009295

Page 68
1 Q And you view it as an appropriate part of the
2 process? Do you?
3 A I think AUSAs need to have discretion to meet with
4 defense counsel, and defense counsel certainly should be able
5 to present perspectives.
6 Q There is an outlook -- this is Exhibit 4, and this
7 is something --
8 Okay.
9 Q -- it's really sort of a point of information here.
10 This is an outlook that shows you and and had
11 a scheduled meeting with Roy Black.
12 A Mm-hmm.
13 Q Roy Black, a prominent --
14 A Right.
15 Q -- local criminal defense attorney at the time in
16 the Miami area. This was a meeting scheduled in your office
17 for the 23rd of February of 2007. Do you have any -- he was
18 a -- he at the time --
19 A Right.
20 Q -- was one of Epstein's attorneys. Do you have any
21 idea whether this meeting related to Epstein or some other
22 case?
23 A I don't. I noticed that and I don't know whether
24 it was this or another matter.
25 Q But you have not particular recollection of meeting
EFTA00009296

Page 69
1 with him on the Epstein matter --
2 A I don't.
3 Q -- at this time? Okay. So, I want to --
4 A And let me note, I think most of the correspondence
5 was from other attorneys and not him. And so, yeah.
6 Q All right. Are you -- are you okay? Do you want
7 to take a short break, or --
8 A Yeah.
9 Q Do you --
10 A Let's -- what time is it? Oh, 11:00.
11 Q Five minutes?
12 A Yeah.
13 Q Five minutes?
14 A Yeah. Let's take a five minute break.
15 Q Off the record.
16 (Off the record.)
17 BY MS.
18 Q All right, back on the record at 11:12, having
19 broken at 11:00. Mr. Acosta, we're going to move to that
20 time frame I mentioned a moment ago, May of 2007 when
21 submitted her prosecution memo of more than 80
22 pages, and her proposed indictment -- her initial proposed
23 indictment, which was more than 50 pages.
24 She submitted that by transmittal memo to her
25 entire chain,
EFTA00009297

Page 70
1 , and you. Was that a typical way for an indictment
2 and proposed prosecution? The memo to come?
3 A To my recollection, it was not, and I don't recall
4 that happening in other cases. I'm trying -- I'm hesitating,
5 just because I'm trying to think through if there's -- I
6 don't have any recollection of it happening in another case.
7 Q Why do you think it happened in this case? And who
8 caused it to happen?
9 A I don't know, and I don't know.
10 Q All right. All right. So, you when you
11 before you saw it -- I don't know if you even knew about
12 it -- you -- by reference to Exhibit 6, you learned
13 essentially from that the FBI was planning to do
14 a press conference two weeks after that, and told
15 this office has not approved the indictment,
16 therefore, "please do not commit us to anything at this
17 time." Were you -- and eventually that e-mail chain --
18 A Right.
19 Q -- gets to you, apparently by blind carbon, because
20 there's no indication you actually get it.
21 A Right.
22 Q But you advise Alicia Valle, who I think was your
23 press person --
24 A Correct.
25 Q -- that, ' hasn't even finished her
EFTA00009298

Page 71
1 recommendation i.e., we are a long way off." So,
2 did you have any idea why the FBI was planning a press
3 conference on Epstein?
4 A I don't -- I don't know if I did. I don't recall
5 if I did.
6 Q Was it -- how typical was it for the FBI to plan a
7 press conference on an indicted -- on a case that was being
8 indicted at the time of an indictment or arrest without
9 coordinating that with you and your office?
10 A Under highly atypical.
11 Q He was the SAC at the time?
12 A He was the SAC -- he was the SAC -- I know he was
13 the SAC at the time as of September, and I'm almost certain
14 he was the SAC at the time.
15 Q All right. And when you said that we are a long
16 way off, and hasn't even finished her recommendation to
17 , can -- do you know whether you had any idea that she
18 had actually submitted her pros memo, and that she had made a
19 recommendation to
20 A I can't -- I can't recollect --
21 Q Okay.
22 A -- but I'll take my words as reflective of, if I
23 say she hasn't finished her recommendation, then I assume she
24 hasn't finished her recommendation, but I don't recall --
25 Q Does that mean --
EFTA00009299

Page 72
1 A -- that level of detail.
2 Q -- as you -- as you look at your own words, does
3 that suggest to you that you were unaware as of that moment
4 that she'd actually submitted her pros memo?
5 A That suggests that I would not have been aware that
6 she submitted it. If -- you know, because it sounds like I'm
7 saying she hasn't even submitted her memo to So --
8 Q All right.
9 A -- we're a long way off.
10 Q All right, so, is --
11 A But again, this is based on practice, not
12 recollection.
13 Q All right, and when you said we are a long way off,
14 did that reflect, if you recall, an assessment of the length
15 of time to get to a pros --
16 A Right.
17 Q -- memo, a recommendation, and an assessment of
18 that, or your expectation that even when you saw a pros memo
19 and an indictment, it would be a long process before it was
20 approved?
21 A So, I would assume -- and again, this is just based
22 on speculating from the way that I write, that I'm thinking
23 she hasn't submitted her recommendation to needs
24 to review it.
25 He may -- you know, he'd probably want to talk to
EFTA00009300

Page 73
1 . It needs to be scrubbed. You know, this could be --
2 this ain't happening next week.
3 Q All right, but in your -- do you have any reason to
4 believe that whatever that process is that you were
5 describing would be any -- any different in any particular
6 measure in this case from the ordinary complex case?
7 A So, from my language, I would take that it's the
8 same process, but that there is a process, and the process
9 hasn't yet been followed.
10 Q All right. Okay.
11 A So, it would be the typical process in a typical
12 complex case.
13 Q All right, and is it fair to characterize this as a
14 relatively complex case, given the legal issues?
15 A I think it is, yes.
16 Q Okay. In Exhibit 8, you actually got the in
17 Exhibit 7, you see that in the bottom part of that that you
18 received a copy of the pros memo on the second page of that
19 exhibit at the top.
20 A Right.
21 is forwarding to you the pros memo.
22 A Right.
23 Q In Exhibit 8, you see that is
24 forwarding or sending to that chain, excluding
25 , that is, and you, additional
EFTA00009301

Page 74
1 items in Operation Leap Year, and that's a summary of the
2 indictment, and evidence regarding the individual victims.
3 Okay? So, as of May 11, you had before you the pros memo,
4 the proposed indictment, and this substantial amount of
5 additional --
6 A Right.
7 Q -- information. Did you read the pros memo?
8 A Right. So, I don't recall -- and I know you're
9 going to say, why don't I, but this was a long time ago. I
10 don't recall if I read it, or if I went back to the office
11 and sat down with and and went over it. I can't
12 recall from this far. I can say that it looks based on this
13 that I was at the U.S. Attorney's conference.
14 Q Mm-hmm,
15 A The idea of printing this out on a hotel printer, I
16 wouldn't -- I can't believe I would have printed this out on
17 a hotel printer.
18 Q Let alone read it on an airplane, correct?
19 A Let alone read it on an airplane. That just
20 wouldn't --
21 Q Right.
22 A -- have been my practice.
23 Q But going back -- arriving back --
24 A Right.
25 Q -- to your office, was it your practice to take
EFTA00009302

Page 75
1 voluminous documents like this and go through them yourself,
2 or did you rely on your senior staff?
3 A I would typically rely on senior staff. They --
4 they're the experienced ones that have seen these matters
5 before. They would go through it. We'd sit down. We'd talk
6 about the issues. We might have it in front of us, almost
7 like you've got all those
Q Okay.
9 A -- binders there, but you know, you're calling my
10 attention to particular issues, and we'd sort of talk it
11 through.
12 Q And do you recall doing that in this case?
13 A I recall having discussions with senior staff about
14 this case.
15 Q Who?
16 A Certainly and at various points, and
17 I can't say that I did that in May versus April versus June.
18 I can't give you
19 Q All right.
20 A -- timelines.
21 Q Well, we're talking now about May.
22 A Right.
23 Q Because you've got the actual --
24 A Yeah.
25 Q -- process.
EFTA00009303

Page 76
1 A It would have been my practice based on this to go
2 back and discuss it, and so based on my practiced, I would
3 have gone back and likely discussed it. I doubt I would have
4 printed this out at whatever hotel I was at.
5 Q But even when you got back to the office, would you
6 have had somebody print it out so you would've had it
7 available?
8 A I may have had someone print it out so it's
9 available. I may have focused on particular parts of it.
10 Q What kinds of issues would you have focused on? In
11 other words -- in other words, some might go straight to the
12 facts.
13 A Right.
14 Q Some might be interested in the legal theories.
15 What was -- what was your approach?
16 A So, I think that depended on the case.
17 Q Okay.
18 A Here, you had legal questions, and you also had --
19 had witness issues, and I would think those would have been
20 the two primary areas.
21 Q Would you have gone through the indictment and the
22 pros memo and all of those other materials, or just relied on
23 your experience seeing your people, and
24 A As a general practice, probably some combination.
25 As a general -- a general recollection, the concerns in this
EFTA00009304

Page 77
1 case weren't about the sordid details of what happened,
2 because we believed he did what he did. The concerns were
3 about some of the legal issues around it, and some of the
4 issues in terms of testimony.
5 Q Of the victims?
6 A Of the victims.
7 Q All right. On page --
8 A And I say that because that would have been what I
9 would naturally focus on as opposed to reading the sordid
10 details, because I think everyone believed the victims.
11 Q All right. Exhibit 9 is an e-mail that you are not
12 on, but that -- notes that is advising that
13 you, , "Has your memo and Lefcourt's letter." Gerald
14 Lefcourt was --
15 A Mm-hmm.
16 Q -- a New York attorney who was one of the members
17 of the Epstein defense team. Did you know him?
18 A I did not.
19 Q Did you ever encounter him as far as you recall?
20 A I did not.
21 Q All right. He had, according to the documents we
22 have, made two substantial submissions to and
23 in --
24 A Right.
25 Q -- February of that year in an effort to dissuade
EFTA00009305

Page 78
1 them from pursuing a prosecution, and we have every reason to
2 believe and no reason not to believe that that's what is
3 being referred to. Do you recall reviewing substantial
4 submissions from defense counsel at this time attacking in
5 very granular detail --
6 Mm-hmm.
7 Q -- the credibility of the witnesses, and so on?
8 A I don't recall reviewing those. Again, I recall
9 discussions with my senior team about issues that included
10 the credibility, and I'm not sure if it's -- credibility is
11 the right word, but how the victims would do on the stands.
12 Q Okay, and who do you recall talking to you about
13 that?
14 A So, some combination of and would have
15 bene the likely -- I recall the discussion. I don't recall
16 whether it was , or whether it was or but the
17 logical inference would have been it would have been some
18 combination of and
19 Q has told us that during this period, he
20 was not actively involved in this case --
21 A Mm-hmm.
22 Q -- but that was. Would that be
23 consistent with your memory, or would --
24 A That -- sure, it -- I mean, they were a team. They
25 became more or less involved based on needs.
EFTA00009306

Page 79
1 Q And was there any particular -- if We EMI was
2 working with you directly on reporting
3 A Right.
4 Q -- on his assessment of this case, was there any
5 reason for Mi to be involved?
6 A I might bounce ideas off him. I mean, he was he
7 was right across, so we worked closely, but you know,
8 was the criminal chief, and if he was in the weeds, , I
9 would speculate would sort of, much like me, defer to his
10 judgement, because they've known each other, and they've
11 worked together, and they had a good working relationship.
12 Q And is it -- do we understand correctly that as
13 first tant, had a brief that really encompassed
14 the entire office?
15 A He did.
16 Q All right.
17 A He -- so, he supervised the civil, the criminal,
18 the appellate, and the forfeiture.
19 Q All right. There is here in this e-mail that you
20 did not see back in the day, Exhibit 9, a pushback from
21 regarding the rush that is in to
22 pursue the case, and he says, "This is obviously a Very
23 significant case, and Alex wants to take his time making sure
24 he is comfortable before proceeding." Do you -- can you tell
25 us what the basis would be for, or was, for that assertion by
EFTA00009307