Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 35-37) (7/4/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 35-37) (7/4/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
0:04
This episode, we're picking right back up where we left
0:06
off with the OIG report into the NPA. In its
0:11
review of the documentary record, OPR examined the email written
0:15
by Villa Fauna in twenty eighteen, more than a decade
0:18
after the NPA was negotiated, in which she suggested that
0:22
the two year sentence for requirement in the initial term
0:25
sheet provided to the defense was developed by Mentchel as
0:28
a favor to the defense attorney Sanchez. OPR examined the
0:32
facts surrounding this allegation and determined that there was no
0:35
merit to it. Specifically, in December twenty eighteen, after the
0:40
Miami Herald investigative report renewed public attention to the case,
0:44
Villa Fauna recounted in an email to a supervisory AUSA
0:48
a conversation she recalled having with Slowman about the case.
0:52
In the email, Villa Fauna stated that she had not
0:55
been a participant in discussions that led to Acosta's decision
0:59
to offer a two year plea deal, but she added
1:01
the following months or possibly years later, I asked former
1:05
first assistant Jeff Slowman where the two year figure came from.
1:09
He said that Lily Anne Sanchez, attorney for Epstein, asked
1:12
mister Minchell to do her a solid and convinced mister
1:15
Acosta to offer two years. OPR questioned both Villa Fauna
1:19
and Slowman about the purported door a solid remark. Villa
1:23
Fauna told OPR that she had been aware that Menchell
1:26
and Sanchez were friends. During her OPR interview, Villa Fauna
1:30
explained a lot later, I asked Jeff. I said, you know, Jeff,
1:34
where did this two years come from? And he said, well,
1:37
I always figured that Lily asked Matt to do her
1:39
a solid, which I thought was such a strange term,
1:42
and to get her a good deal so that she
1:44
would be in Epstein's good graces, and that's where the
1:47
two years came from. Although strangely enough, then several years
1:51
after that, Jeff Slowman asked me where the two years
1:54
came from, and I had to remind him of that conversation.
1:57
So Jeff doesn't know where the two years came from,
2:00
because the email had been expressed in more definitive terms.
2:04
OPR asked Villa Fauna whether Sloman had affirmatively asserted that
2:08
the two year deal was a favor from Menchell to
2:11
defense counsel, or whether he had stated that he merely
2:14
figured that was the case, but Villa Fauna could not
2:17
recall precisely what Sloman had said. At a follow up interview,
2:21
Villa Fauna again said that she was unable to recall
2:24
whether Sloman's specific statement was Lily asked Matt to do
2:27
her a solid and he did it, or I always
2:30
figured Matt just wanted to do her a solid. Villa
2:33
Fanna stated that she was unaware of any information that
2:37
expressly indicated that there was any sort of exchange of
2:40
a favor in either direction. During his OPR interview, Sloman
2:44
did not recall making such a remark, although he could
2:47
not rule out the possibility that Villa Fauna, for whom
2:50
he repeatedly expressed great respect, heard that in some fashion.
2:54
He told OPR that if he did say something to
2:57
Villa Fauna about Menchell having done a solid for Epstein's council,
3:01
he could not have meant it seriously, and he explained,
3:04
it's not something that I would have believed him doing
3:06
her as solid. I mean, that's the furthest thing from
3:09
my recollection or impression even after years later, Menchell told
3:14
OPR that when he and Sanchez were in the USAO,
3:17
they had a social relationship which included in two thousand
3:21
and three, a handful of dates over a period of
3:23
two or three weeks. We decided that this was probably
3:26
best not to pursue, and we mutually agreed not to
3:30
do that. Apart from that, he stated, they were very
3:33
close and hung out, and he asserted that this was
3:36
known in the office at the time. Menchell said that
3:38
his relationship with Sanchez changed dramatically when she left the
3:42
office for private practice, and that by the time he
3:44
became involved in the Epstein investigation, he had dated and
3:48
married his wife, and his contact with Sanchez was most
3:51
likely have been at office events and when she attended
3:55
his wedding. Menchell added that was three and a half
3:57
years prior, from a very brief period of time, and
4:00
I don't think I gave it a moment's thought. When
4:03
asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to
4:06
make an offer for a two year term of incarceration,
4:09
Menchell said that he did not recall discussions about the
4:12
two year offer and did not recall how the office
4:15
arrived at that figure. In response to opr's question, Menchell
4:19
stated that his relationship with Sanchez did not at all
4:22
affect his handling of the Epstein case. Moreover, Menchell asserted
4:27
that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it
4:31
was a Costa, not Menchell, who made the decision to
4:33
resolve the case with the two year term. OPR carefully
4:37
considered the documentary record on this point, as well as
4:41
the statements to OPR from Menchell, Villafana, Sloman, and DaCosta,
4:45
and concludes that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion
4:48
that the plea was instigated by Menchell as a favor
4:52
to the Defense Council. The usao's first plea overture to
4:56
Defense Council, which took place sometime before June twenty six,
5:00
occurred when Menchell spoke with Sanchez about the possibility of
5:04
resolving the federal case with the state plea that required
5:07
jail time and sexual offender registration. According to the email,
5:12
it was a non starter for the defense. In the
5:14
lengthy email exchange with Villa Fauna in early July two
5:18
thousand and seven, Menchell told her that his discussion with
5:21
Sanchez about a state based resolution was made with Acosta's
5:25
full knowledge. Acosta corroborated this statement, telling OPR that although
5:30
he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchell concerning
5:33
a state based resolution, he was certain Menchell would have
5:36
discussed his potential resolution with defense counsel without having discussed
5:40
it with me. Moreover, the defense did not immediately accept
5:44
the two year proposal when it was made, but instead
5:47
continued to press for a sentence of home confinement, suggesting
5:51
that the defense had not requested the two year term
5:53
as a favor and did not view it as such.
5:56
The defense had previously rejected the state's offer of assentate
6:00
of probation, and there is no indication in the contemporaneous
6:04
records that Epstein viewed any jail sentence favorably, and certainly
6:08
did not appear to be the view of the defense
6:10
team in the early stages of the negotiations, as discussed below.
6:15
After extensive questioning of the subjects about the basis for
6:18
the two year offer and through a review of the
6:21
documentary record, OPR was unable to determine the reasoning underlying
6:26
the decision to offer two years as the term of
6:28
incarceration as opposed to any other term of years. Nonetheless,
6:33
OPR concludes from the evidence that Acosto was aware and
6:37
approved the initial offer to the defense, which included the
6:40
two year term of incarceration. The only evidence suggesting that
6:45
the offer of two years stem from an improper motivation
6:48
of Mentchels was a single secondhand statement and an email
6:51
drafted many years later. Sloman the purported declarate, told OPR
6:56
that he could not recall whether he made that statement,
6:58
but he firmly disputed that the email accurately reflected either
7:02
the reason for the two year proposal or his understanding
7:05
of that reason. Villafauna herself could remember little about the
7:09
critical conversation with Sloman, including whether she had recorded accurately
7:14
what Sloman had said. Given the lack of any corroborating
7:17
evidence and the evidence showing Epstein's vigorous resistance to the proposal,
7:22
OPR concludes that there is no evidence to support the
7:25
statement in Villa Fauna's twenty eighteen email that Menchell had
7:29
extended a two year plea deal as a favor to
7:32
one of Epstein's attorneys. E. The evidence does not establish
7:36
that the subject's meetings with defense Council were in proper
7:39
benefits to Epstein. OPR considered whether decisions by Acosta, Sloman, Menchell,
7:44
and Lorie to meet with defense Council while possible charges
7:48
were under consideration or during the period after the NPA
7:52
was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty please
7:55
evidenced in proper favoritism toward or the provision of an
7:59
improper benefit to the Epstein team. One. The evidence shows
8:03
that the subject's decisions to meet with Epstein's legal team
8:06
were warranted by strategic considerations. Although pre indictment negotiations are
8:11
typical in white collar criminal cases involving financial crimes, witnesses
8:16
told OPR that pre charge meetings with defense council are
8:19
infrequent in sex offense cases. As the lead prosecutor of
8:23
Villafauna opposed meeting with Epstein's attorneys and voiced her concern
8:27
to her supervisors, but was overruled by them. In Villa
8:30
Fawna's view, the significance of the early meetings granted to
8:33
the defense team that was but for those meetings, the
8:36
USAO would not have offered the disposition set forth in
8:40
the July thirty, first, two thousand seven term sheet, and moreover,
8:44
the term sheet would never have been offered to anyone else.
8:47
OPR investigation established that while the defense attorneys persistently contacted
8:52
the subjects through emails, correspondents, and phone calls, relatively few
8:57
in person meetings actually occurred with the USAO personnel involved
9:01
in the matter, as shown in the chart on the
9:04
following page. While the case was under federal investigation and
9:08
before the NPA was signed, the subject Supervisors and Defense
9:11
council had five substantative meetings about the case, including one
9:16
called by the USAO to offer the NPA term sheet
9:19
resolution and a six meeting together with the state attorney
9:23
and the lead state prosecutor to discuss the state plea.
9:26
Acosta attended only one pre NPA meeting. After the NPA
9:31
was signed and before Epstein entered a state guilty please,
9:34
the subject supervisors and the defense team had one substantive meeting,
9:39
one unscheduled meeting on a procedural matter, and a meeting
9:42
with one defense attorney in preparation for a conference call.
9:46
In addition, Acosta had the breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz. OPR
9:50
explored the subject supervisor's reasoning for accommodating the defense requests
9:54
for in person meetings and whether such accommodation was UNUSUALPR
9:59
question each of the four supervisory subject attorneys about his
10:03
rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with the defense. Lourie
10:07
could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epstein's defense counsel,
10:11
but he told OPR that his general practice was to
10:14
meet with the defense counsel when asked to do so.
10:17
Lourie recognized that some prosecutors, like Villa Fauna, viewed meeting
10:21
with the defense as a sign of weakness, but in
10:23
Lourie's view, information is power, and as long as the
10:26
USAO did not share information with the defense, but rather
10:30
listen to their arguments, meetings were all power to us.
10:34
Lourie explained that by meeting with the defense, you're getting
10:37
the information that they think is important, that they're going
10:40
to focus on the witnesses that they think are liars,
10:43
and you can form all of that into your strategy.
10:46
Lourie told OPR that giving defense counsel the opportunity to
10:50
argue the defense position is an important part of the
10:53
process that helped insure procedural fairness, allowing them to believe
10:57
that they are getting heard. When asked whether he afforded
11:00
the same access to all defendants, Laurie responded, I don't
11:03
recall ever getting so many requests for meetings and so
11:07
many appeals in so many audiences that Epstein's attorney's got,
11:11
but this was I think the first time that it's
11:13
really happened. Menchell too told OPR that in his general
11:17
view was that ethically it's appropriate to give a defense
11:20
attorney an audience, and there was no real downside to
11:23
doing so. Menchell added, what happens a lot of times
11:26
is the government will carve around those points that are
11:29
being raised by the defense, and it's good to know
11:32
what the defense will be. During his OPR interview, Acosta
11:35
rejected the notion that his meeting with defense counsel was
11:39
unusual or outside the norm. He told the OPR that
11:42
his initial meeting with the defense team before the NPA
11:45
was signed was not the first time and only time
11:48
that I granted a meeting to defense attorneys who requested one.
11:52
Acosta did not believe it was atypical for US attorney
11:55
to meet with the opposing council, particularly as a case
11:58
was coming to resolution. Sloman corroborated a cost on this point,
12:03
telling o PR that a Costa typically met with defense
12:05
attorneys and that the USAO handled requests for meetings from
12:09
Epstein's council in the normal course. Furthermore, Acosta said that
12:14
notwithstanding that meeting and all the other processes granted to
12:17
the defense by the USAO and the Department, we successfully
12:21
held firm in our positions on the key elements of
12:23
the resolution, and that is the requirement that Epstein be incarcerated,
12:28
register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to
12:32
the victims. O PR examined the circumstances surrounding each subject's
12:37
decisions to have the individual meetings with the defense council
12:40
to determine if those meetings had a neutral strategic purpose.
12:44
The first meeting, on February first, two thousand seven, followed
12:48
a phone call between Loriri and one of Epstein's attorneys,
12:51
in which the attorney asked for a chance to make
12:53
a pitch about the victim's lack of credibility and suggested
12:56
that Epstein might agree to an interview following the pitch.
13:00
Vilafauna objected to the meeting with the defense, but she
13:03
recalled that Lourie told her that she was not being
13:06
a strategic thinker and that he believed the meeting could
13:08
lead to a debriefing of Epstein. The meeting did not
13:12
result in a debriefing of Epstein, but in advance of
13:15
the follow up meeting in February twentieth, two thousand and seven,
13:18
Defense Council gave the USAO audio recordings of the state's
13:22
witness interviews. Contemporaneous documents indicate that Lourie was unpersuaded by
13:27
the defense arguments. After Villa Fauna circulated the prosecution memorandum,
13:33
Laurie suggested preparing a short charging document with only clean
13:37
victims that they had not dirtied up already. The fact
13:41
that Laurie apparently used information gleaned from the defense about
13:44
the victim's credibility to formulate his charging recommendation supported his
13:48
statements to OPR that such meetings were, in his experience,
13:52
a useful source of information that could be factored into
13:55
the government's charging strategy. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap
13:58
this one up right here. In the next episode, we're
14:00
going to pick up where we left off. All of
14:03
the information that goes with this episode can be found
14:06
in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome back
14:09
to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right
14:12
back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement.
14:19
The two February two thousand and seven Villa Fauna LORI
14:22
level meetings focused on witness issues and claims of misconduct
14:27
by state investigators, but in late May two thousand and seven,
14:30
defense attorneys requested another meeting, this time with higher level
14:34
supervisors Menchell and Slowman, to make a presentation concerning legal
14:38
deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution. The request was granted
14:43
after Lori recommended to Menchell and Slowman that it would
14:46
probably be helpful for us to hear their legal arguments
14:49
in case we have missed something. The requested meeting took
14:53
place on June twenty six, two thousand and seven. Before
14:57
the meeting, at Menchell's direction, Villa Fauna provided the defense
15:01
a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the
15:04
basis for the federal charges. Defense Council use that information
15:09
to prepare a nineteen page letter submitted to the USAO
15:13
the day before the June twenty six meeting as an
15:15
overview of the defense position. In an email to his colleagues,
15:19
Lori evaluated the defense submission, noting its weaker and stronger arguments.
15:25
The contemporaneous email indicates that Menchell, Lorii, and Vilafauna viewed
15:29
the meeting itself as primarily a listening session. After the meeting,
15:33
Epstein's team submitted a second lengthy letter to the USAO
15:37
detailing Epstein's federalism arguments that the USAO should let the
15:42
state handle the matter. Menchell apparently scheduled the next meeting
15:46
with the Defense Council on July thirty one, two thousand
15:49
and seven, to facilitate the usao's presentation to the defense
15:53
team of the term sheet describing the proposed terms of
15:56
a non prosecution agreement. By early August, after Kirkland and
16:00
Ellis attorneys star In Lefkowitz joined the defense team, a
16:03
Costa believe they would likely go to DC on the
16:06
case on the grounds that I have not met with them.
16:09
A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for
16:12
September seventh, two thousand and seven, when Acosta, Sloman, Villa, Fauna,
16:16
and Oster Bond met with star Lefkowitz, and Sanchez. In
16:20
an email to Slowman, a Costa explained that he intended
16:23
to meet with the defense, with Osterband participating to discuss
16:27
general legal policy only. In another email to Sloman and Lori,
16:31
Acosta explained, this will end up in the department anyhow.
16:34
If we don't meet with them, I'd rather keep it here.
16:37
Bringing the CEO's chief invisibly does so. If our deadline
16:42
has to slip a bit to do that, it's worth it.
16:44
A Costa told OPR that the meeting was not a negotiation,
16:48
but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments.
16:52
Acosta said that he had already decided how he wanted
16:55
to resolve the case, and the September meeting did not
16:58
alter or shift that position. The meeting of USAO representatives
17:03
and Epstein's defense attorneys, together with the state attorney and
17:06
the lead state prosecutor on September twelfth, two thousand and seven,
17:09
was a necessary part of the NPA negotiation process. Even
17:13
after the NPA was signed, the defense continued to request
17:17
meetings and reviews of the case, both within the USAO
17:21
and by the department's Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General.
17:24
Although limited reviews were granted during this period. There was
17:28
only one substantive meeting, but with Acosta, on December fourteenth,
17:32
two thousand seven. This meeting occurred in lieu of the
17:35
meeting Star had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most
17:39
likely because the Defense submissions to the department's Criminal Division
17:43
had raised issues not previously raised with the USAO, and
17:46
the department determined that Acosta should address those in his
17:49
first instance. A Costa told OPR that he did not
17:53
ask the department review, but he also did not want
17:56
to appear as if he feared that review. Acosta's nuanced position, however,
18:01
was not clearer to the department attorneys who responded to
18:04
Epstein's appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor
18:07
of a department review rather than merely tolerant of it. Notably,
18:11
though none of those meetings or reviews resulted in the
18:14
USAO abandoning the NPA, and Epstein gained no substantial advantage
18:19
from its continued attempts. In some in evaluating the subject's conduct,
18:24
OPR considered the number of meetings, their purpose, the content
18:28
of the discussions and decisions made afterwards, OPR cannot say
18:32
that the number of meetings, particularly those occurring before the
18:35
NPA was signed, was so far outside the norm for
18:38
a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys, that the
18:42
quantity of the meetings alone shows the subjects were motivated
18:46
by improper favoritism. In evaluating the subject's conduct, OPR considered
18:51
that the meetings were held with different levels of the
18:54
usao's managers, and that the explanations for the decisions to
18:57
participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic goals. Although OPR
19:03
cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta, mental Lory,
19:06
and Sloman knew of the defense attorneys, they may have
19:10
been willing to meet with them, it is also true
19:12
that a prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys, including those
19:16
who are known to them and those who are not. Furthermore,
19:19
meetings are more likely to occur in high profile cases
19:23
involving defendants with the financial resources to higher skilled defense
19:27
council who request meetings at the highest levels of the
19:30
USAO and the department. Most significantly, OPR did not find
19:35
evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in
19:40
any substantial benefit to the Defense At each meeting, Defense
19:44
Council strongly press the USAO, on factual, legal and policy grounds,
19:49
to forego its federal investigation and return the matter to
19:53
State to proceed as its law fit. The USAO never
19:56
yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find evidence
20:00
supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchell, LORII, or Villafauna
20:05
met with the Defense Council for the purpose of benefiting Epstein,
20:08
or that the meetings themselves caused Acosta or the other
20:11
subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein. Two, The evidence
20:16
does not establish that Acosta negotiated a deal favorable to
20:19
Epstein over breakfast with Defense Council. OPR separately considered the
20:24
circumstances of one specific meeting that had been the subject
20:28
to media attention and public criticism. The Miami heralds November
20:32
twenty eighteen reporting on the Epstein investigation open with an
20:36
account of the October twelfth, two thousand and seven, breakfast
20:39
meeting that Defense Council Jay Lefkowitz arranged to have with
20:43
Acosta at the West Palm Beach Marriotte Hotel. According to
20:47
the Miami Herald article, a deal was struck at the
20:50
meeting to allow Epstein to serve just thirteen months in
20:53
the county jail in exchange for the shuddering of the
20:56
federal investigation, and Acosta also agreed to conceal the full
21:00
extent of Epstein's crimes from the victims and the public.
21:03
Although public criticism of the meeting has focused on the
21:06
fact that the meeting occurred in a hotel far from
21:09
Acosta's Miami office, the evidence shows that Acosta traveled to
21:13
West Palm Beach on October eleventh for a press event
21:16
and stayed overnight at the hotel near the usao's West
21:19
Palm Beach office because at midday on October twelfth, he
21:23
was to speak at the Palm Beach County Bench Bar conference.
21:27
After carefully considering the evidence surrounding the breakfast meeting, including
21:31
contemporaneous email communications and witness accounts, OPR concludes that Acosta
21:36
did not negotiate the NPA or make any significant concessions
21:40
relating to it during or as a result of the
21:43
October breakfast meeting. Epstein had his attorneys signed the NPA
21:49
on September twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, more than
21:52
two weeks before the October twelfth breakfast meeting. The signed
21:55
NPA contained all of the key provisions resulting from the
21:58
preceding weeks of negotiations between the parties, and despite a
22:02
later addendum and ongoing disputes about interpreting the damage's provision
22:06
of the agreement, those key provisions remained in place thereafter.
22:11
Acosta told OPR that throughout the negotiations with the defense
22:15
he sought three goals, one Epstein's guilty plea in state
22:18
court to an offense requiring registration as a sexual offender,
22:22
two a sentence of imprisonment, and three a mechanism through
22:26
which victims could obtain monetary damages from Epstein. As noted previously,
22:31
the usao's original plea offer in Menchel's August third, two
22:35
thousand seven letter expressed a non negotiable demand that Epstein
22:39
agreed to two year term of imprisonment, and the final
22:42
NPA required only an eighteen month sentence, but the decision
22:45
to reduce the required term of imprisonment from twenty four
22:48
to eighteen months was made well before Acosta's breakfast meeting
22:52
with Council. The NPA signed on September twenty fourth two
22:56
thousand and seven, required eighteen months incarceration, sexual offense registration,
23:01
and the mechanism for the victims to obtain monetary damages
23:04
from Epstein and OPR found that these terms were not
23:08
abandoned or materially altered after the breakfast meeting. At the
23:12
time of Acosta's October breakfast meeting with left Kowitz, two
23:15
issues involving the NPA were in dispute. Neither of those
23:19
issues was ultimately resolved in a way that materially changed
23:22
the key revisions of the NPA. First, at Sloman's instigation,
23:27
the USAO sought to change the mechanism for appointing an
23:31
attorney representative for the victims. The USAO initiated request at
23:35
prompted discussions about an addendum to the NPA. Sloman sent
23:40
the text of a proposed NPA addendum to left Kowitz
23:43
on October eleventh, two thousand and seven. Although OPR found
23:47
no decisive proof that this led to the breakfast meeting,
23:51
email exchanges between left Kowitz and Acosta show that it
23:54
was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting.
23:57
Shortly after the breakfast meeting, Sloman in Miami Temy sent
24:00
an email to Lefkowitz, copying Acosta and Villafauna, noting that
24:04
he had just got off the phone with Alex and
24:07
offering a slightly revised portion of the addendum relating to
24:10
the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative. Sloman later
24:15
clarified for Villa Fauna that jay suggested revision had been rejected.
24:20
A second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense
24:23
claim that Epstein's obligation under the NPA to pay the
24:26
attorney's representative fees did not obligate him to pay the
24:30
fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Although
24:34
this was at odds with the usao's interpretation of the provision,
24:38
the USAO and the Defense Council reached agreement and clarified
24:42
the provision in the NPA's addendum that was finalized several
24:46
weeks after the October Breakfast meeting. Although the revised provision
24:50
was to Epstein's advantage, the revision concerned attorney's fees and
24:54
did not materially impede the victim's ability to seek damages
24:57
from Epstein under Section twenty two fives five. The fact
25:01
that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that
25:05
Acosta did not make promises at the meeting that resolved
25:08
the issue. OPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion
25:13
between Acosta and Lefkowitz. In a letter sent to Acosta
25:16
on October twenty three, two thousand and seven, two weeks
25:19
after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three
25:23
significant concessions during the meeting, Specifically, Lefkowitz's claim that Acosta
25:28
had agreed one not to intervene with the State Attorney's
25:31
office handling of the case, two not to contact any
25:34
of the victim witnesses or their council, and three not
25:38
to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received. Acosta told OPR
25:42
that he did not remember that breakfast meeting and did
25:45
not recall making the commitments defense council attributed to him.
25:49
Acosta also told OPR that Lefkowitz was not a reliable
25:53
narrator of events, and on several occasions and written communications,
25:57
had inaccurately and misleadingly characterized conversationations with a costa of
26:02
more significance for opr's evaluation, was a contemporaneous document an
26:07
October twenty fifth, two thousand and seven draft response to
26:10
Lefkowitz letter which Sloman drafted and a Costa reviewed and
26:14
edited for signature by Sloman that disputed Leftkowitz claims. The
26:18
draft letter stated, I specifically want to clarify one of
26:21
the items I believe was inaccurate in that October twenty
26:25
third letter. Your letter claimed that this office would not
26:28
intervene with the State Attorney's office regarding this matter or
26:31
contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential
26:36
civil claimants and their respective councils in this matter, and
26:39
neither your office nor the FBI would intervene regarding the sentence.
26:43
Mister Epstein receives pursue it to applea with the state
26:46
so long as the sentence does not violate state law.
26:50
As we discussed and hopefully clarified, and as the United
26:53
States Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call, such
26:57
promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our
27:00
office cannot and will not agree to this. It is
27:03
the intent of this office to treat this matter like
27:05
any other case. Acosta told OPR that this was a
27:09
polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing what Acosta said
27:13
during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR cannot find evidence that
27:17
the letter was sent to Leftkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it
27:20
persuasive evidence that Acosta shortly after the breakfast meeting disagreed
27:25
with lefkowitz description of their discussions and had discussed those
27:29
disagreements with Slowman. Nevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions
27:34
that Lefkowitz described in the October twenty third letter to
27:37
determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during
27:41
the breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during
27:45
the breakfast meeting that he did not intend to interfere
27:48
with the state's handling of the case. Contemporaneous documents show
27:52
that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the
27:55
view that he did not want to dictate actions of
27:57
the State Attorney or the state Court. For example, during
28:00
the NPA negotiations, Acosta asked Villafauna to soften certain language
28:05
that appeared to require the State Attorney's office or the
28:08
State Court to take specific actions, such as requiring that
28:11
Epstein enter his guilty plea or report to begin serving
28:15
the sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have
28:18
made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination
28:22
to interfere with the state's proceedings, such a statement would
28:26
have been a reiteration of his prior position on the subject,
28:30
rather than any new concession. Lefkowitz also claimed in his
28:34
October twenty three, two thousand and seven letter, that Acosta
28:38
agreed not to contact any of the victims or potential
28:41
witnesses or their council for the reasons discussed more fully
28:44
in Chapter three. OPR concludes that the decision not to
28:48
notify the victims about the NPA did not stem from
28:51
the breakfast meeting, but rather reflected an assessment of multiple
28:54
issues and considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated
28:59
in that decision, Acosta, Sloman, and Villa Fauna. Finally, lefkowitz
29:04
October twenty third letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not
29:07
to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received from the state court,
29:12
and it asserted that Epstein was entitled to any type
29:15
of sentence available to him. Including but not limited to
29:18
gain time and work release. Later communications between the USAO
29:22
and Defense Council, however, show clearly that Acosta did not
29:26
abandon the NPA's explicit sentencing provision. The NPA required Epstein
29:31
to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorney's office
29:33
for an eighteen month jail sentence, although the parties understood
29:37
that he would receive the same gain time benefits available
29:40
to all state inmates. After the October breakfast meetings, Sloman
29:44
and Villafauna, on behalf of the USAO repeatedly made clear
29:48
that it would hold Epstein to that requirement, and the
29:51
USAO also subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release.
29:57
For example, in a November fifth, two thousand seven, letters,
30:00
Sloman requested confirmation from Defense Council that Epstein intends to
30:04
abide by his agreement to plead guilty to the specified
30:08
charges and to make a binding recommendation that the court
30:11
impose a sentence of eighteen months of continuous confinement in
30:14
the County jail. Shortly before Epstein entered his plea in
30:19
June of two thousand and eight, Villafuna wrote to the
30:21
State Attorney to remind him that the NPA required Epstein
30:24
to plead in state court to an offense that required
30:27
an eighteen month sentence of incarceration, and the USAO would
30:31
consider a plea that differed from that requirement a breach
30:34
of the NPA and would proceed accordingly. The guilty plea
30:39
Epstein entered in a state court in June two thousand
30:42
and eight was consistent with the dictates of the NPA,
30:44
and pursuant to that plea, the court imposed a sentence
30:47
of eighteen months incarceration. Epstein, however, applied for and was
30:52
accepted to the work release program and was able to
30:54
serve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail.
30:58
The NPA did not reference work release nor authorize Epstein
31:02
to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm
31:05
Beach County Stockade. Moreover, Villafauna received assurances from Defense Council
31:10
that Epstein would serve his entire sentence of confinement in custody.
31:14
Responsibility for that decision to afford Epstein work release privileges
31:19
during his incarceration rested with state officials, who had the
31:22
sole authority for administering the work release program. After considering
31:26
the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acostas October twelfth,
31:32
two thousand and seven, breakfast meeting with Leftquwitz, OPR found
31:35
nothing in the record to suggest that the meeting resulted
31:38
in a material change to the NPA, affected the sentence
31:42
of Epstein, served pursue it to the NPA, or contributed
31:45
to a state officials decision to permit him to participate
31:49
in work release. All right, we're going to wrap this
31:51
episode up here and then the next episode dealing with
31:54
the topic, we'll pick up where we left off. All
31:57
of the information that goes with this episode can be
31:59
found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
32:03
back to the Epstein Chronicles. We're going to pick up
32:06
where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey
32:09
Epstein's non prosecution agreement. F Vilafuna's emails with defense attorney
32:15
Lefkowitz during the NPA negotiations do not establish that Villafauna
32:20
or other subjects intended to give Epstein preferential treatment or
32:24
were motivated by favoritism or other improper influences. During the
32:29
CVRA litigation, the petitioners obtained from Epstein's attorney and filed
32:34
under seal or adacted series of email exchanges between epstein
32:37
attorney Lefkowitz, and Villafauna and others with Acosta and Sloman
32:42
during the two thousand and seven September meeting when the
32:46
NPA was being finalized and thereafter. These emails had been
32:50
redacted to delete most of Lefkowitz's side of the communications,
32:54
and consequently they did not reflect the full context of
32:57
Villafauna's communications to Lefkowitz. The redacted emails were later unsealed
33:03
and made public over Epstein's objections. Media coverage pointed to
33:07
the content and tone of Villafauna's emails as proof that
33:10
Villa Fauna and the USAO worked in concert with Epstein's
33:14
attorneys to keep the sweetheart deal the secret from the
33:17
victims and the public. Statements in several emails in particular
33:21
were cited as evidence of the usao's and proper favoritism
33:26
toward Epstein. In one example, Villa Fauna told Lefquitz that
33:29
she was willing to include in the NPA a provision
33:33
agreeing not to prosecute others, but would prefer not the
33:36
highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and
33:39
all of the other persons that we could charge. She
33:42
also offered to meet with them off campus to finalize negotiations.
33:46
She also proposed on an avoid the press note that
33:50
filing federal charges against Epstein and Miami rather than West
33:54
Palm Beach instead of Miami would substantially reduce press coverage.
33:59
OPR asked for Launa about these emails and about the
34:02
tenor of her interactions with Lefkowitz during the NPA negotiations
34:06
and with other defense attorneys generally. Villa Fauna acknowledged that
34:10
her tone was collegial and collaborative and explain that generally,
34:14
the tone of these emails reflected her personality and her
34:18
commitment to complete the task her supervisors had assigned her.
34:22
If you were to pull all my emails on every case,
34:24
you would find that that's how I communicate with people.
34:27
I'm a Minnesota girl. I prefer not to be confrontational
34:30
until I have to be, and I can be when
34:32
I need to be. But my instructions from my supervisors
34:35
were to engage in these negotiations and to complete them.
34:39
So I felt that given that task, the best way
34:41
to complete them was to reach the agreement and keeping
34:44
in mind the terms that our office had agreed to,
34:48
and do that in a way that is civil. So
34:50
although my language in the kind of introductory or prefatory
34:54
communications with mister Lefkowitz was casual and friendly, when you
34:58
look at the terms and when you look book and
35:00
he would come back to ask for changes, my response
35:03
was always no, I will not make that change. Villafauna
35:07
denied any intention to keep the victims uninformed about the
35:10
NPA or to provide an improper benefit for Epstein, and
35:14
she explained the context of the emails in question. The
35:18
email in which villa Fauna expressed reluctance to highlight for
35:21
the judge all of the other crimes and all of
35:23
the other persons that we could charge was written in
35:26
response to a defense proposal to include in the federal
35:29
plea agreement. The parties were then considering a promise by
35:32
the government not to prosecute Epstein's assistants and other employees.
35:37
Lefkowitz had proposed that the plea agreement state Epstein's fulfilling
35:41
the terms and conditions of the agreement also precludes the
35:45
initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise
35:49
in the future be brought against four named female assistants
35:53
or any employees of a specific Epstein owned corporate entity
35:57
for any criminal charges that arise out of the on
36:00
going federal investigation. Villa Fauna told OPR that the USAO
36:05
was not intending to charge Epstein's assistance and was not
36:08
aware of anyone else who could be charged, and thus
36:11
did not oppose the request not to prosecute third parties. However,
36:15
Villa Fauna was concerned that an overly detailed federal plea
36:19
agreement would prompt the court to require the government to
36:22
provide further information about the uncharged conduct, which might lead
36:26
Epstein to claim the government breach the agreement by providing
36:30
information to the court not directly connected to the charges
36:33
to which he was pleading guilty. Villafana was not the
36:37
only one to express concern about how deeply a federal
36:40
court might probe the facts and whether such probing would
36:43
interfere with the viability of a plea agreement. In an
36:46
earlier email, Lori had suggested charging Epstein by complaint to
36:50
allow the USAO more flexibility in plea negotiations and avoid
36:55
the problem that a court might not accept a plea
36:58
to a conspiracy charge required dismissal of numerous substantative counts.
37:03
As to Villa Fauna's offer to meet with left Kuwitz
37:06
off campus to resolve outstanding issues in the NPA negotiation,
37:10
she explained to OPR that she believed a face to
37:13
face meeting at a neutral location with all the necessary
37:17
decision makers present or on call, might facilitate completion of
37:21
the negotiations, which had dragged on for some time. With
37:25
regard to her comment about avoiding the press, Villa Fauna
37:28
told OPR that her goal was to protect the anonymity
37:31
of the victims. She said that the case was far
37:34
more likely to be covered by the Palm Beach Press,
37:37
which had already written articles about Epstein, than in Miami,
37:41
and if the victims wanted to attend the plea hearing,
37:44
I wanted them to be able to go into the
37:45
courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper.
37:50
In evaluating the emails, OPR reviewed all the email exchanges
37:54
between Villa Fauna, as well as Sloman and Acosta and
37:57
left Kuwitz and other defense counsel, including the portions redacted
38:02
from the publicly released emails, except for a few two
38:05
or from Acosta, copies of which OPR did not locate
38:10
in the USAO records. OPR also considered the emails in
38:14
the broader context of Villa Fauna's overall conduct during the
38:18
federal investigation of Epstein. The documentary record, as well as
38:22
witness and subjective interviews, establishes that Villa Fauna consistently advocated
38:27
in favor of prosecuting Epstein and worked for months towards
38:31
that goal. She repeatedly pressed her supervisors for permission to
38:35
indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope
38:39
of the case. She opposed meetings with defense team and
38:42
nearly withdrew from the case because her supervisors agreed to
38:46
those meetings. Villa Fauna objected to the decision to resolve
38:50
the case through a guilty plea in state court, and
38:52
she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with
38:56
Menchel about the subject. When she was assigned to the
38:59
teench of creating an agreement to affect that resolution. Villa
39:03
Fauna fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the
39:07
usao's position despite Defense Council's aggressive tactics. OPR also considered
39:13
statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense counsel. Slowman,
39:19
in particular, told OPR that reports that Villa Fauna was
39:22
soft on Epstein couldn't have been further from the truth.
39:25
Sloman added that Villa Fauna did her best to implement
39:28
the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable.
39:32
Laurie similarly told OPR that he read the District Courts
39:36
February twenty nineteen opinion in the CVRA litigation and the
39:40
emails from Villa Fauna cited in that opinion. He was
39:43
surprised to see how nice she was to them, and
39:46
she winds up taking it on the chin for being
39:48
so nice to them, when I know the whole time
39:51
she was the one who wanted to go after him
39:53
the most. The AUSA who assisted Villa Fauna on the
39:57
investigation told OPR everything that Villafoniaa did was, as far
40:01
as I could tell, completely pro prosecution. Because the emails
40:05
in question were publicly disclosed without context and without other information,
40:09
showing Villa Fauna's consistent efforts to prosecute Epstein and assist victims,
40:14
a public narrative developed that Villa Fauna colluded with Defense
40:18
counsel to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims.
40:22
After thoroughly reviewing all of the available evidence, OPR finds
40:26
that narrative to be inaccurate. The USAO and Villa fauna
40:31
interactions with the victims can be criticized, as OPR does
40:34
in several respects in this report, but the evidence is
40:37
clear that any misteps Villa Fauna may have made in
40:40
her interactions with victims or their attorneys were not made
40:44
for the purpose of silencing victims. Rather, the evidence shows
40:48
that Villa Fauna, in particular cared deeply about Epstein's victims.
40:53
Before the NPA was signed, she raised to her supervisors
40:56
the issue of consulting with victims, and after the NDA
41:00
was signed, she drafted letters to notify victims identified in
41:04
the federal investigation of the pending state plea, preceding and
41:08
inviting them to appear. The draft letters led Defense Counsel
41:12
to argue to department management that Villa Fauna and Sloman
41:16
committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a highly improper
41:20
and unusual victim notification letter to all of the listed victims.
41:25
Given the full context of Villa Fauna's conduct throughout her
41:28
tenure on the case. OPR concludes that her explanations for
41:32
the emails are entitled to significant weight, and OPR credits them.
41:36
OPR finds, therefore, that the emails in question do not
41:40
themselves establish that Villa Fauna or any other subject acted
41:44
to improperly benefit Epstein, was motivated by favoritism or any
41:49
other improper influences, or sought the silence victims. Ge the
41:54
evidence does not established that Acosta, Lori or Villa Fauna
41:58
agreed to the NPA's provision prompt missing not to prosecute
42:01
potential co conspirators in order to protect any of Epstein's
42:05
political celebrity or other influential associates. OPR examined the decision
42:11
by the subjects who negotiated the NPA, Villafauna, Lori, and
42:15
Acosta to include in the agreement a provision in which
42:18
the USAO agreed not to prosecute any potential co conspirators
42:23
of Epstein, in addition to four named individuals, to determine
42:27
whether that provision resulted from the subjects in proper favoritism
42:31
toward Epstein or an improper effort to shield from prosecution
42:35
any of Epstein's known associates. Other than various drafts of
42:39
the NPA and the Federal Plea Agreement, OPR found little
42:43
in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision, and nothing indicating
42:48
that the subjects discussed or debated it, or even gave
42:51
it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and other Federal
42:55
plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not
42:58
to prosecute any potential co conspirators of Epstein evolved from
43:02
a more narrow provision sought by the Defense. The provision
43:06
expanded as Villa Fauna and Defense Council exchanged drafts of
43:10
first a proposed Federal Plea Agreement and then of the NPA,
43:14
with apparently little analysis and no substantiative discussion within the
43:19
USAO about the provision. As the NPA drafting process concluded,
43:23
Villa Fauna circulated to LORII and another supervisor a draft
43:28
that contained the non prosecution provision, telling LORI it was
43:32
some of the Defense Council's requested language regarding promises not
43:36
to prosecute other people, and commenting only, I don't think
43:39
it hurts us in a reply email, Lourie responded to
43:43
Villa Fauna and he had raised defense counsel's attempt to
43:46
insert an immigration waiver into the agreement, but Lourie did
43:49
not comment on the provision, promising not to prosecute co conspirators,
43:53
or as Villa Fauna to explain why she believed the
43:56
provision did not harm the government's interests. In a subsequit
44:00
an email about the draft NPA, Villa Fauna asked Lorii
44:03
for any other thoughts, but there is no indication that
44:06
he provided further input. OPR found no document that suggested
44:11
Villa Fauna and Lourie discuss the provision further, or that
44:14
the other individuals who were copied on Villafana's email referencing
44:18
the provision, her immediate supervisor, the supervisor designated to succeed
44:22
Lori as manager of the West Palm Beach office, and
44:25
Villafana's co council commented on or had substantative discussions about it.
44:31
Villafana told OPR that because none of the three supervisors
44:34
responded to her observation that non prosecution provision doesn't hurt us,
44:39
Villa Fauna assumed that they agreed with their assessment Vilafanna
44:43
told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically
44:46
about the provision agreeing not to prosecute any potential co conspirators,
44:51
but she remembered generally that the defense council told her
44:54
Epstein wanted to make sure that he is the only
44:57
one who takes the blame for what happened. Villa Fauna
45:00
told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein's conduct
45:04
was his own, dirty, little secret. Villafana said the press
45:07
coverage at the time of Epstein's two thousand and six
45:10
arrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts
45:13
participated in Epstein's illicit activity, and that none of the
45:17
victims interviewed by the case agents before the NPA was
45:20
signed told the investigators about sexual activity with any of
45:23
Epstein's well known contacts about whom allegations arose many years later.
45:29
Villafauna acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship
45:33
with a close female friend who was a well known socialite,
45:37
but according to Villa Fauna, in two thousand and seven,
45:39
they didn't have any specific evidence against her. Accordingly, Villa
45:43
Fauna believed that the only co conspirators of Epstein who
45:46
would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants
45:49
identified by name. Villa Fauna also told OPR that the
45:53
focus of the usao's investigation was Epstein, and the office
45:57
was not inclined to prosecute his four assistancedents if he
46:01
entered a plea. Because Villa Fauna was unaware of anyone
46:05
else who could or would be charged, she perceived no
46:08
reason to object to a provision promising not to prosecute
46:11
other unspecified co conspirators. Villa Fauna told OPR that, given
46:16
her understanding of the facts at the time, it did
46:19
not occur to her that the reference to other potential
46:22
co conspirators might be used to protect any of Epstein's
46:25
influential associates. Lourie, who was transitioning to his detail at
46:30
the Department Criminal Division at the time Villa Fauna forwarded
46:33
to him the draft NPA containing the non prosecution provision,
46:37
told OPR that he did not know how the provision
46:40
developed and did not recall any discussions about it. Laurie
46:44
described the promise not to prosecute potential co conspirators as
46:47
unusual and told OPR that he did not know why
46:50
it was included in the agreement, but added that it
46:53
would be unlike me if I had read the language,
46:56
just leave it in there unless I thought it was
46:58
somehow helpful. Posited that victims who recruited other underage girls
47:03
to provide massages for Epstein theoretically could have been charged
47:07
as co conspirators. He told OPR that when he saw
47:10
the provision, he may have understood the reference to unnamed
47:14
co conspirators as a message to any victim that had
47:17
recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them.
47:21
Acosta did not recall any discussions about the non prosecution provision,
47:25
but he told OPR that Epstein was always the focus
47:28
of the federal investigation and he would have viewed the
47:31
federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required
47:35
to face meaningful consequences for his actions. Acosta told OPR
47:39
that when he reviewed the draft NPA, to the extent
47:42
I reviewed this co conspirator provision, I can speculate that
47:46
my thinking would have been the focus is on Epstein
47:48
going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to
47:51
jail or other lesser involved individuals is not the focus
47:54
of this. Acosta also told OPR that he assumed Villafana
47:59
and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it
48:02
was appropriate. Finally, Slowman, who was not involved in negotiating
48:06
the NPA, told OPR that in retrospect he understood the
48:10
non prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein's for assistance,
48:14
and it never dawned on them that it was intended
48:16
to shield anyone else. This broad provision promising not to
48:19
prosecute any potential co conspirator is troubling, and, as discussed
48:24
more fully later in this report, OPR did not find
48:27
evidence showing that the subjects gave careful consideration to the
48:30
potential scope of the provision, or whether it was warranted
48:34
to give. That the investigation had been curtailed and the
48:38
USAO lacked complete information regarding possible co conspirators, Villafauna precipitously
48:44
revised a more narrow provision sought by the defense. Given
48:48
its evolution from a provision sought by the defense, it
48:51
appears unlikely to have been designed to protect the victims,
48:55
and there is no indication that at any time the
48:57
subjects believed that was the purpose. However, the USAO had
49:01
not indicated interest in prosecuting anyone other than the four
49:05
named female assistants, and OPR found no record indicating that
49:09
Epstein expressed concern about the prospective fate of anyone other
49:13
than the four assistants and unnamed employees of specific Epstein company. Accordingly,
49:19
OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that alex Acosta,
49:22
Lori or Villa Fauna agreed to the non prosecution provision
49:26
to protect any of Epstein's political celebrity or other influential associates.
49:32
All right, we're going to wrap up right there, and
49:34
in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna
49:36
pick up with Part H. All of the information that
49:39
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.