Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 32-34) (7/25/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 32-34) (7/25/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: report into Jeffrey Epstein's and PA three. The NPA did
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: not violate department policy relating to deportation of criminal aliens.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: During the negotiations, the USAO rejected a defense offered provision
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating, or in any way
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings against two female assistants. However,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: OPR considered whether the April twenty eighth, nineteen ninety five
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute Epstein's
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: two female assistants, who were known to be foreign nationals
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: as Villa Fauna urged in our prosecution memorandum and thus
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: trigger their removal, or conversely, whether it precluded the USAO
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: negotiated resolution. OPR found nothing in the policy that created
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: a clear and an ambiguous standard in either regard the
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: Attorney General's April twenty eighth, nineteen ninety five memorandum regarding
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: deportation of criminal aliens directed federal prosecutors to become involved
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: actively and directly in the process of removing criminal aliens
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: from the United States, and, along with u SAM section
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: nine Dash seventy three dot five twenty, provided that all
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: the portable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist. However,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: Epstein's to assistance were not deportable unless and until convicted
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: of a crime that would have triggered their removal. But
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: neither the policy memorandum nor the u SAM imposed an
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: against a foreign national, nor did either provision preclude the
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: broad discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions. The policy
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: guidance also requires prompt and close coordination within a grid
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: officials in cases involving alien defendants, and specifies that prosecutors
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: must notify immigration authorities before engaging in plea negotiations with
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: alien defendants. OPR learned during its investigation that an ICE
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages. Moreover,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: because the USAO never engaged in pleaan negotiations, with two
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: female assistants who in any event had not been charged
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: and were therefore not defendants. No further notification was required.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Part four. The evidence does not establish that the subjects
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: were influenced by improper motives to include in the NPA
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: terms favorable to Epstein or to otherwise extend benefits to Epstein.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: OPR investigated whether any of the subjects, Acosta, Sloman, menchel Lori,
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: or Villafauna, was influenced by corruption, bias, or any other
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: improper motive, such as Epstein's wealth status or political associations,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: to include terms in the ENDAS that were favorable to Epstein,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: or whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: federal investigation. OPR considered the case specific reasons the subjects
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: identified as the motivation for the USAOs July thirty first,
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: two thousand and seven term sheet and Acosta's approval of
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: the NPA in September two thousand and seven. OPR also
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: the subjects were motivated by improper influences, including the subject's
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: pre existing relationships with Defense Council, the subject's numerous meetings
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: with Epstein's team of nationally known attorneys, emails between the subjects,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: particularly Villa Fauna and Defense Council that appeared friendly, casual,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: and deferential to Defense Council, And inclusion in the NPA
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: of a broad provision declining to prosecute all of Epstein's
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: co conspirators. These factors are analyzed in the following discussions
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: throughout this section of the report. As a threat vishal matter,
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: opr's investigation of the subject's decisions and actions in the
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery, gratuity,
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: or legal, political, or personal consideration. In addition, OPR examined
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: the extensive contemporaneous documentary record, interviewed witnesses, and questioned the
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: subject attorneys. The evidence shows three sets of issues influenced
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA. The
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: first of main concern to Acosta involved considerations of federalism
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: and the deference to state authority. The second arose from
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: an assessment by acosta senior advisors Sloman, Menchel and Lori
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: that the case carried substantial litigation risks, including both witness
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: issues and what some viewed as a novel application of
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case.
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: The third was a costa's aim of obtaining a greater
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: measure of justice for victims of Epstein's conduct and for
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: the community that proposed by the state. Although the NPA
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: and the process for reaching it can be criticized, as
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: OPR does, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations,
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: such as Epstein's wealth, status or associations. That is not
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous wealth.
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: prestige skill and extensive experience in federal and state criminal
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: law and in conducting negotiations. He had the resources to
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: preparation of multiple written submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis,
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: as well as multiple in person meetings involving several of
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: his attorneys and USAO personnel. He assembled a defense team
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: well versed in the USAO and the Department, with the
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: knowledge to maneuver through the department's various levels and offices,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: used by those familiar with the department's hierarchy. Access to
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: highly skilled and prominent attorneys is not unusual in criminal
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: cases involving corporations and their officers or certain other white
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: collar defendants, but it is not so typical for defendants
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: charged with sex crimes or violent offenses. Nonetheless, while recognizing
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: that Epstein's wealth played a role in the outcome because
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys, OPR
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: concludes that the subjects were not motivated to resolve the
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: federal investigation to Epstein's benefit by improper factors. A OPR
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: found no evidence of criminal corruption, such as bribery, gratuity,
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: or legal, political, or personal consideration. Some public criticism of
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: the usao's handling of the Epstein matter implied that the
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: subject's decisions or actions may have been motivated by criminal corruption,
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: although no specific information substantiating such implications was identified. Throughout
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: its investigation, OPR was attentive to any evidence that any
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: of the subjects was motivated by bribes, gratuities, or other legal,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: political or personal considerations, and found no such indication. Witnesses,
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: including law enforcement officials, were specifically asked whether they had
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: any information indicating such corruption, and law notwithstanding the harsh
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: criticism by some of those same witnesses of the Epstein
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: matter's outcome, stated that they did not. Specifically, the FBI
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: case agent told OPR that she did not believe there
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: had been any illegal influence, and that if she had
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: perceived any, she would have gone screaming to the FBI's
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: Public Corruption Unit. The co case agent and the FBI
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: supervisors up through the Special Agent in charge likewise told
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: OPR that they were unaware of any indication that a
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: as gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence, and that
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: any such indication would immediately have been referred to criminal
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: investigation by the FBI. B contemporaneous written records and witness
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: and subject interviews did not reveal evidence establishing that the
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: subjects were improperly influenced by Epstein's status, wealth, or associations.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: Although Epstein's name is now nationally recognized in two thousand
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: and six, in two thousand and seven, he was not
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: a familiar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida.
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: All five subjects told OPR that when they first learned
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: of the investigation, they had not heard of Epstein. Similarly,
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: the FBI case agent told OPR that when the investigation began,
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: no one in the FBI appeared to have heard of Epstein,
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: unfamiliar with Epstein. However, news reports about Epstein and his
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: July two thousand and six arrest on the state indictment,
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: which were contemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation,
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: identified him as a wealthy Palm Beach resident with influential
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: contacts including William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: and other prominent business, academic and scientists. Villa Fauna, Lorie Sloman,
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: and Acosta learned of his press coverage early in the
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: investigation and thus understood that Epstein was wealthy and associated
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: with notable public figures. The FBI case agent also told
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: OPR that we knew who had been on his plane,
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: we knew some of his connections, and just to interject
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: real quick, that's a straight up lie. They knew about
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: Epstein way back in the day, and that's because he
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: was reported to them by Maria Farmer. One contemporaneous records
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: did not reveal evidence establishing that the NPA resulted from
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: improper factors. OPR found no evidence in the extensive contemporaneous
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: documentary record that the terms of the NPA resulted from
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: improper factors, such as Epstein's wealth or influential connections. Epstein's
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: legal team overtly raised Epstein's financial status in arguing for
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: a sentence that did not include a term of imprisonment
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: on the grounds that Epstein would be extor in prison,
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: but the USAO insisted that Epstein serve a term of incarceration.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Defense council mentioned former Clinton in one pre NPA letter,
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: but that reference was made in context of a narrative
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: of Epstein's philanthropic activities, rather than presented as a suggestion
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: that Epstein's association to the former president warranted leniency, and
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: in any case, the USAO rejected the defense argument that
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: the matter should be left entirely to the state's discretion.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: The defense submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: direct reference to Epstein's connection the former President Clinton, but
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: the submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: and signed, and in it, Council contended that the USAO
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: had treated Epstein too harshly because of his association with
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: the former president. Two the subjects asserted that they were
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: motivated by reasonable strategic and policy considerations, not in proper influences.
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: In addition to reviewing the documentary evidence, OPR questioned the
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: five side object attorneys, all of whom denied being personally
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: influenced by Epstein's wealth or status, in making decisions regarding
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: the investigation, in the decision to resolve the case through
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: the NPA, or in negotiating the NPA. Villa Fauna in particular,
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: was concerned from the outset of the federal investigation that
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: Epstein might try to employ against the USAO. The same
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: pressure that she understood had been used with the State
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: Attorney's office, and she proactively took steps to counter Epstein's
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: them to Epstein's tactics. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: that the USAO had handled cases involving wealthy high profile
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: defendants before, including the abram Off case. A Costa told OPR,
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: we tried to treat this case fairly, not looking at
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: how wealthy he is, but also not saying we need
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: to do this because he is so wealthy. Menchell expressed
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: a similar review, telling OPR that he did not believe
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: it's appropriate to go after somebody because of their status
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: one way or the other. Lori told OPR that Epstein's
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: status may have generated more front office involvement in the case,
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: but it did not affect the outcome, and Slowman emphatically
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: disagreed with the suggestion that the usao's handling of the
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: case had been affected by Epstein's wealth or influential connections.
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: Other witnesses corroborated the subject's testimony on this point, including
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: the FBI case agents, who told OPR that no one
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: because of his wealth. The CEO's chief told OPR that
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: he did not recall anyone at the USAO expressing either
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: wealth or influence. OPR takes note of, but does not
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: consider dispositive the absence of any affirmative evidence that the
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: such motivations. Of more significance, and has discussed more fully below,
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: was the fact that temporaneous records support the subject's assertions
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: that the decision to pursue a pre charge resolution was
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: based on various case specific, legal and factual considerations. OPR
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: also considered that the usao's most pivotal decisions to resolve
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: the case through an NPA requiring Epstein to serve time
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: in jail, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: damages to victims had been made by July thirty first,
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: two thousand and seven, when the USAO presented its term
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: sheet to the Defense. This was before Acosta had ever
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: met with Defense Council and when he had been indicated
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: and he plans to do so. It's also well before
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: Acosta's October twelfth, two thousand and seven, breakfast meeting with
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: Defense Council left Kowitz, which received strong public and media criticism.
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: OPR also considered significant the fact that, although the USAO
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: made numerous concessions in the course of negotiating the final NPA.
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: The USAO did not accede to the defense request that
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: the USAO and federal involvement altogether and return the matter
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: to the state authorities to handle as they saw fit,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: and the USAO refused to eliminate its requirement that Epstein
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: register as a sexual offender, despite a strong push by
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: the defense that it does. So, all right, that's going
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: to do it for this one. And in the next episode,
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with Part three, Subject and
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: witness interviews and contemporaneous records, identified case specific considerations relating
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: to evidence, legal theories, litigation risk, and a trial's potential
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: impact on the victims. All of the information that goes
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: This episode, we're getting right back to the OIG report
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: into the non prosecution Agreement three, Subject and witness interviews
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: and contemporaneous records, identified case specific considerations relating to evidence,
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: legal theories, litigation risk, and a trial's potential impact on victims. Acosta, Sloman, Menchel,
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: and Lauri told OPR that they did not recall the
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: specific content of discussions about the challenges presented by a
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: potential federal prosecution, or reasons for Acosta's decision to resolve
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: the federal investigation through the NPA. But they and Vilafauna
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: identified for OPR several case specific factors unrelated to Abstein's
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: wealth or associations that either did or likely would have
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: been included in those discussions and that OPR concludes likely
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: influenced Acosta's decision making. These considerations include assessment of the
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: evidentiary risks and the potential impact of a trial on
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: the victims. For the most part, however, these factors appear
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: more aptly to pertain to the decision to resolve the
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: case through a precharge disposition, but do not directly explain
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: why a Costa chose to resolve the federal investigation through
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: a guilty plea in state court. That decision appears to
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: have stemmed from Acosta's concerns about intruding into an area
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: he believed was traditionally handled by state law enforcement authorities.
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: In a declaration submitted to the District Court in two
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: thousand and seven in connection with the CVRA litigation, Villafauna
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: explained to the usao's rationale for terminating the federal investigation
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: through the NPA. Prior to the office making its decision
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: to direct me to engage in negotiations with Epstein's council,
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: I discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the case with
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: members of the office management and inform them that most
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: of the victims had expressed significant concerns about having their
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: identities disclosed. It is my understanding from these and other
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: discussions that these factors, that is, the various strengths and
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: weaknesses of the case, and the various competing interests of
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: the many different victims, including the privacy concerns expressed by many,
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: together with the office's desire to obtain a guaranteed sentence
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: of incarceration for Epstein, the equivalent of uncontested restitution for
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: the victims and guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein, were
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: among the factors that led to the NPA. During her
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: OPR interview, Villa Fauna similarly described the victim's general reluctance
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: to go forward with a trial. When we would meet
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: with the victims, we would ask them how they wanted
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: the case to be resolved, and most of them wanted
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: the case to be resolved via a plea. Some of
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: of them did not want to have to come to
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: court to testify, and they were very worried about their
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: privacy rights. In his written response to OPR, Lurie stated
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: that although he did not specifically recall the issues Villa
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: Fauna set forth in her declaration, he believed they would
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: have been important to the USAO. In two thousand and seven,
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: Laurie told OPR that he generally recalled concerns within the
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: USAO about the charges and a potential trial. My vague
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: recollection is that I and others had concerns that there
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: was a substantial chance we would not prevail at both
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: trial and on appeal after a conviction, resulting in no
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: jail time, no criminal record, no restitution, no sex offender status,
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: publication at a trial, of the names of certain victims
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: that didn't want their names revealed, and the general difficulties
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: of a trial for the families and the victims. Although
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: his email showed that at the time he advocated for
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: prosecution of Epstein, Lori told OPR it was also his
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: general recollection that everybody at the USAO working on the
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: term viability of a federal prosecution of Epstein due to
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: certain factual and legal hurdles, as well as issues with
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: the cooperation and the desires of the victims. Similarly, Menchell,
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: who had experienced prosecuting sexual assault crimes, recalled understanding that
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: would have experienced additional trauma as a result of a trial,
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: and some had made statements exonerating Epstein. Menchell told OPR
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: charges against Epstein, Epstein would have elected to go to trial.
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: In Menchell's view, the USAO therefore had to weigh the
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: risk of losing at trial and thereby retraumatizing the victims
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: against the benefits gained through the negotiated result, which ensured
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: that Epstein served time in jail, registered as a sexual offender,
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: and made restitution to his victims. Slowman also recalled witness
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: challenges and concerns about the viability of the government's legal theories.
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: He told OPR, it seemed to me you had a
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: trench of witnesses who were not going to be reliable.
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: You had a tranch of witnesses who were going to
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: be severely impeached, people who loved Jeffrey Epstein, who thought
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: he was a Svungali, who were going to say I
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: told him I was eighteen years old. You had witnesses
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: who were scared to death of the public light being
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: shown on them because their parents didn't even know, had
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: very vulnerable victims. You had all of these concerns. Acosta
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: told OPR that he recalled discussions with senior managers about
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: the victim's general credibility and reluctance to testify, and the
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: evidentiary strength of the case, all of which factored into
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: the resolution. He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: was not granular and did not encompass a detailed understanding
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: of each victim's expected testimony, but he trusted that his
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: team had already done the diligence necessary to make recommendations
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: about the evidentary strength of the case. Acosta recalled discussing
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: the facts with Slowman and Menchel and possibly Lori, none
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: of whom had a detailed and understanding of the facts
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: as Villafauna. Nevertheless, OPR credits a costas statement that he
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: reasonably believed based on his conversations with others who expressed
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: this view, that a trial would pose significant evidentiary challenges.
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: Other witnesses corroborated the subject's testimony regarding witness challenges, including
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: the FBI co case agent, who recalled during his OPR
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: interview that some of the victims had expressed concerns for
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: their safety and a lot of them didn't want to
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: take the stand and didn't want to have to relive
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: what happened to them. The co case agent told OPR
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: that one of the strategies for dealing with victims fear
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: was to keep them off the stand, and he generally
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: that protected victim's identities. In addition, the CEO's trial attorney,
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: who briefly worked with Villa Fauna on the case after
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: the NPA was signed, told OPR that in her meetings
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: with some of the victims, she formed the impression that
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: there were not interested in the prosecution going forward. The
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: CEO's trial attorney told ODPR that the victims would have testified,
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: but would have required an extensive amount of victim management
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: because they were deeply embarrassed about potentially being labeled as prostitutes.
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: The CEO's trial attorney also told OPR that there were
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: obvious weaknesses in the case from an evidentiary perspective. The
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of or references to, various
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: legal and factual issues or other concerns about the case.
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: For example, in an early email to Menchell, Lori noted
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: that two key issues raised by Villa fauna proposed charges
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: the purpose of engaging in sex acts and the fact
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: that some minor victims had told Epstein they were eighteen.
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: He later opined to a Costa and Menchel that there
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: is some risk on some of the statutes proposed in
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna's prosecution memorandum, as this is uncharted territory to
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: some degree. In his July fifth, two thousand and seven
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: email to Vilafauna, Menchel cited Acosta and Sloman's concerns about
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: taking this case because of the petit policy and a
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: number of legal issues, and Acosta's concerns about hurting projects
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: save childhood. Defense counsel raised a myriad legal and factual
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: challenges to their letters to the USAO. Defense submissions attack
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: the legal theories for a federal prosecution and detail factors
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: that could have undermined victim's credibility, including victim's statements favorable
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: to Epstein and evidence of victim drug and alcohol use,
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: as well as the fact that some victims recruited other
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: victims and purportedly lied to Epstein about their ages. Acosta
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: also recalled that although his team had expressed concern about
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: the trial issues, his own focus had been on the
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: legal side of things. Notably, during his prior tenure as
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the department's Civil
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: Rights Division, Acosta had been involved in efforts to address
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking. He told OPR that one of the background
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: issues that the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership,
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: and which influenced his view of the Epstein case, was
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: a distinction between sex trafficking and solicitation of prostitution. Specifically,
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: he was concerned about avoiding the creation of a potentially
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: unfavorable federal precedent between prostitution, which was traditionally a matter
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: of state concern, and sex trafficking. Which remained a developing
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: area of federal interest in two thousand and seven. The
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: USAO might not have been able to surmount the evidentiary,
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: legal and policy issues presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein.
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: Villafauna in particular, believed she could have prevailed had she
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: taken the case to trial and EVA, and after the
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: NPA was negotiated, she repeatedly recommended declaring Epstein in breach
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: and proceeding with an indictment because she continued to have
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: confidence in the case. Osterbond and others also believed that
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: the government would succeed at trial. Furthermore, the victims were
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: not a uniform group. Some of them were afraid of
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: testifying or having their identities made public. Others wanted Epstein prosecuted.
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: But even among those, it's not clear how many expressed
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: a willingness to testify at a trial, and still others
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: provided information favorable to Epstein. In the end, the cost
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: to assume responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: investigation and weighing the risks and benefit of a trial
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: versus those of a precharge disposition, his determination that a
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: precharge disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances.
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: Although the evidentiary and witness issues explained the subject supervisor's
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: concerns about a winning a potential trial and why the
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: USAO would have sought some sort of pre charge disposition,
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: they do not fully explain and why Acosta decided to
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: pursue a state based resolution as opposed to a traditional
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: federal plea agreement. OPR did not find in the contemporaneous
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: records a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: Acosta's decision to offer a state based resolution or the
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: terms offered to the defense on July thirty first, two
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: thousand and seven. According to Acosta in two thousand and six,
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: it would have been extremely unusual for any United States
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: Attorney's office to become involved in a state solicitation case,
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: even when involving underage teens, because solicitation was a province
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: of state prosecutors. Acosta told OPR that he developed a
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: preference for deferring to the state to make it clear
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: that the USAO was not stepping on something that is
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: purely a local matter, because we didn't want bad precedent
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: for the sake of the larger human trafficking issue. Acosta
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: also told OPR that it was his understanding that the
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: PbD would not have brought the case to federal investigators
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: if the State Attorney's office had pursued a sanction against
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein that had included jail time and the sexual offender registration.
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: A Costa viewed the usao's role in the case as
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: limited to preventing the manifest injustice that, in Acosta's view,
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: would have resulted from the state's original plea proposal. A
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: Costa acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: federal system, we would not have viewed the term set
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: out in the NPA as satisfactory result, but it was
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: adequate to serve as a backstop to the state's prosecution,
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: which he described as a polite way of saying or
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: encouraging the state to do a little bit more in
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: some Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case lay in
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: unchartered territory. There was no certainty that the USAO would
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: prevail if it went to trial, and a potentially unfavorable
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: outcome had to be weighed against a certain plea with
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: registration that would make sure that the public knew that
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: this person was a sex offender. A Costa told OPR
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: that he discussed the case primarily with Loman and Menchel,
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: and both told OPR that while they did not share
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: Acostas federalism concerns, they recalled that Acosta had been concerned
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: about policy and federalism issues. Slowman told OPR that although
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: he did not remember specific conversations, he generally recalled that
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: Acosta had been sensitive to petit policy and federalism concerns,
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: which Slowman described as whether the USAO was overstepping our
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: was in the state attorney's office that was resolved by
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: the state attorney's office at some level. During his OPR interview,
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: Menchell remembered that Acosta approached the case from a broader
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: policy perspective and was worried about the impact that taking
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: the case in federally may have on other programs, although
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: Menchell did not recall specifically what those programs were. All Right,
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap this one up right here, and
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: in the next episode we're going to pick up with
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: c Other significant factors are inconsistent with the conclusion that
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: the subjects actions were motivated by improper influences. All of
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: to the Epstein chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. See
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: other significant factors are inconsistent with the conclusion that the
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: subject's actions were motivated by improper influences. OPR considered additional
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: suggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July thirty, first,
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: two thousand and seven terms was driven by corruption, a
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein, or other
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: improper influences. First, OPR considered highly significant the fact that
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: if Acosta's primary motivation was to benefit Epstein, he had
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him.
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: The NPA required Epstein to serve time in jail and
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: register as a sexual offender, and provided a mechanism for
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: the victims to seek monetary damages, outcomes unlikely if the
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: matter had been abandoned and sent back to the state
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: for whatever results state authorities deemed appropriate. Epstein's attorneys had
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: in the investigation and that his conduct was exclusively a
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: matter of state concern. If the USAO had declined to
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: intervene in the case, as Epstein's counsel repeatedly and strongly
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: argued it should, the state would have meted out the
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: sole punishment for his behavior. Under the state's original plan,
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: Epstein likely would have received a sentence of probation. Menchel
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: described such a result as a mere slap on the wrist,
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: with no jail time, no felony, no sex offense, no
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: sexual offender registration, and no restitution for the victims. Instead
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: of acceding to Epstein's proposal, however, the USAO devised a
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: resolution of the federal investigation that, although widely criticized as
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: inadequate to address the seriousness of evslas Stein's conduct, nevertheless
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: penalized Epstein more than a guilty plead to the state's
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: original charge standing alone would have done. Acosta's affirmative decision
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: to intervene and to compel a more stringent and just
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: resolution than the state had proposed. Rather than exercising his
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: discretion to quietly decline prosecution is strong circumstantial evidence that
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein. Similarly,
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: despite Defense Counsel's repeated requests to eliminate the sexual offender
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: registration requirement, Acosta refused to reconsider the provision. Acosta would
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely if his
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein's attorneys. Second, Epstein
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: himself was not satisfied with the NPA. Immediately after signing
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: the agreement, he sought to have the Department nullify it
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: by declaring federal involvement in the investigation inappropriate. In addition
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submission of the
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USA personnel,
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: Epstein's dissatisfaction with the NPA and his personal attacks on
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the agreement appear inconsistent with
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: the conclusion that the subjects design the NPA for Epstein's benefit.
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: D OPR does not find that the subject's pre existing
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: relationships with Defense Council, decisions to meet with Defense Counsel,
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: and other factors established that the subjects acted from improper
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: influences or provided improper benefits to Epstein. In evaluating the
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: subject's conduct, OPR considered various other factors featured in media
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: Epstein or which purportedly suggested that the subjects acted from
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: improper influences. OPR examined these factors but did not find
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: that they supported of finding that the subjects were influenced
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: by favoritism, bias, or other proper motivation. One the evidence
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: does not establish that the subjects extended any improper benefit
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: to Epstein because of their pre existing relationships with his attorneys.
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: Epstein's wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: pre existing personal connections to some of the government attorneys
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: involved in his case in the State Attorney's office, in
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: the USAO and elsewhere in the department. Based on the
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: attorneys Epstein selected to represent him, a reasonable inference can
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys with relationships
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him. One of
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: the first attorneys who contacted the USAO on Epstein's behalf
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: was Guy Lewis, a former AUSA and US attorney for
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: the Southern District of Florida. Villafauna and Laurie had worked
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: for Lewis, and Laurie was close friends with one of
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: Lewis's law partners. Epstein also retained to Lily Anne Sanchez,
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: a former AUSA who had been Menchel's deputy and with
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein was seeking Acosta's
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: personal involvement in the case, Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: Jay Lefkowitz, prominent attorneys from kirk Lan Ellis, with whom
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: Acosta was acquainted from his previous employment with that firm.
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna told OPR that she believed Acosta was influenced
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: by the stature of Epstein's attorneys. Critically, However, other than
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: the information regarding Menchel that is discussed in the following subsection,
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: neither Villa Fauna nor any of the other individual OPR
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta or any
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: of the other subjects extended and in proper favor or
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel,
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: or for any other improper reason. Villa Fauna explained how,
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: in her view, the legal prowess of Epstein's attorneys had
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: an impact on the case. One of the issues in
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: the case was the defense ability to describe the case
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: or characterize the case as being legally complex. It was
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: not as legally complex as they made it out to be,
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: but because they were able to convince members of our
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: office that it was somehow extremely novel and legally complex,
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: the issue became who was likely to succeed in arguing
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: these legal issues, and because of that, the legal prowess,
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: if you will, of the attorneys is something to consider.
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: Starr nj Lefkowitz to convince alex Acosta that I didn't
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: know what I was talking about also came into play.
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: So I think there were a number of factors and
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: it all came together. Although Villafana was critical of Acosta's
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: consideration of the defense arguments, she conceded that the defense
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: team's tactics demonstrated effective advocacy. Certainly throughout the case, Epstein's
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing the evidence and arguing nuanced
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: legal points concerning federalism. The elements of numerous federal criminal
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: statutes and the evidence relevant to those statutes. But it's
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: not unusual or unreasonable for prosecutors to carefully consider well
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: craftedly legal arguments from the Defense Council. There is little
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: question that Epstein's extensive team of attorneys was able to
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: obtain negotiated benefits for Epstein. Although the USAO never wavered
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: from its three core requirements, it did agree to a
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: reduction in prison time from its original offer and to
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: grant that Epstein's certain other concessions during the negotiations, Epstein's
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: wealth provided him with skilled, experienced negotiators who continually sought
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: various incremental concessions, and with attorneys who knew how to
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: obtain department review of a USAO matter, thereby delaying undesired
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: outcomes for as long as possible. Despite Epstein's evident intentions, However,
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: OPR did not find evidence warranting a conclusion that the
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: NPA or its terms resulted from the subject's relationship with
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: the attorneys he had selected to represent them. Two the
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: subjects asserted that their relationships with Defense Council did not
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: influence their actions. Acosta, mental Slowman, and each asserted that
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: Epstein's choice of counsel did not affect his handling of
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: the case. Menchell told o PR that once in private practice,
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: former colleagues often became adversaries. In Menchell's views, such pre
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: existing relationships were useful because they afforded a defense attorney
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: initial credibility and an insight into the issues a prosecutor
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: would likely view as areas of concern, which enabled the
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: defense attorney to tailor arguments in a way that would
• 36:26
  Speaker 1: maximize their persuasive impact on the USAO. Menchell told o PR, however,
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: that these advantages did not move the needle in any
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: major way, and he rejected the notion that anyone in
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: the USAO had been swayed because of pre existing friendships
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: or associations with any of Epstein's attorneys. In fact, Menchell
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: told OPR that he had his USAO colleagues viewed Epstein's
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: ham fisted and clumsy. Sloman told o PR that although
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: he became aware that Lori was friends with Guy Lewis
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: and Lewis's law partner, he was unaware of personal relationships
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: between any of his colleagues and any of Epstein's attorneys,
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: but that in any event, his attitude or regarding cases
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: involving former colleagues was that we would give them process,
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: but we didn't pull any punches with them. And Sloman's view,
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: pre existing relationships with defense counsel did not change the
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: equation because as Ausa's he and his colleagues were motivated
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: by what they perceived to be the best for the case.
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: Lourie told OPR that his pre existing associations with Epstein's
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: attorneys didn't influence anything. Notably, at the outset of the
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: Epstein case, Laurie sought guidance from the usao's Professional Responsibility
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: Officer about the propriety of his role as a supervisor
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: in the investigation because of his acquaintance with Lewis and
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: longtime friendship with Lewis's law partner. OPR considered Laurie's caution
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility officer's advice as
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: regarding relationships with defense counsel, including avoiding the appearance of
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: a conflict of interest. Acosta said during his OPR interview
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: that he developed the three criteria reflected on the term
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: sheet of sentence, incarceration, sexual offender registration, and monetary damages
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: for the victims before he engaged directly with any of
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: Epstein's attorneys, and before Epstein added Star and left Kowitz
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: the Kirkland and Nellis attorneys to his team. Acosta pointed
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: out that the USAO continued to insist on a resolution
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: that satisfied all three of those criteria even after Kirkland
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: and Ellis became involved in the case. Acosta took other
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: action that appear inconsistent with an intent to benefit Star
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: and left Kowitz. On several occasions when directly appealed to
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: Bi Left Kowitzer Star, he directed them to address their
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: communications to Villafauna, Sloman, and other subordinates. After his October twelfth,
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: two thousand and seven, breakfast meeting with left Kowitz, Acosta
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: immediately communicated with Slowman about their conversation. In late two
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: thousand and eight, when Acosta anticipated leaving the USAO and
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: was considering pursuing employment with Kirkland Danellis, he recognized the
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: conflict of interest and instructed Slowman to stop copying him
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: on emails relating to the Epstein matter on Acosta's behalf.
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: The usao's professional Responsibility Officer sought and obtained formal department
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: approval of Acosta's recusal from the case, based on the
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: fact that he had begun to discuss possible employment with
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: Kirkland Ellis. These actions support Acosta's assertion that he was
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: cognizant of his ethical responsibilities concerning relationships with defense counsel.
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: All right, we're going to wrap this episode up here,
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: and in the next episode, we're going to pick up
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: where we left off. All of the information that goes
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.