Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 12-15) (4/5/26)

Summary

The Epstein Chronicles — Mega Edition: OIG Report Detailing the Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Parts 12-15)

Date: April 5, 2026
Host: Bobby Capucci
Episode Focus: A deep-dive into the OIG (Office of the Inspector General) report on Jeffrey Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement (NPA), covering internal prosecutorial conflict, negotiation details, the handling (and mishandling) of evidence, and the gradual reduction of Epstein’s sentence.
Coverage: Parts 12-15 of the OIG Report, focusing on decisions and negotiations from mid-2007, the role and disputes among prosecutors, key internal communications, and mounting frustration from law enforcement.

---

Episode Overview

Bobby Capucci continues his examination of the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA, providing granular insights into how and why the federal case against Epstein was resolved via a state plea—and ultimately, how that process was shaped by internal dissent, legal ambiguity, aggressive defense tactics, and heated disagreement over victims' rights and the adequacy of punishment.

Capucci narrates and critically comments on correspondence, strategic considerations, and dramatic meetings chronicled in the report, highlighting the positions and arguments of Alex Acosta (then U.S. Attorney), his deputies, federal prosecutors like Marie (Maria) Vilafana, and members of Epstein’s high-powered defense team.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Acosta’s Rationale for Pursuing a State Resolution

• Federal Backstop Logic: Acosta claimed in OPR/OIG interviews that the federal role was only to “serve as a backstop” for state prosecution (01:00), emphasizing respect for state sovereignty (Petite Policy) and concern that federal involvement could risk creating an unfavorable legal precedent regarding prostitution vs. trafficking.
• Manifest Injustice Standard: Acosta argued intervention would only be warranted in cases of “manifest injustice,” which he didn’t see here if Epstein faced at least a minimal sentence via state charges.

Notable Quote:

“I’m not saying it was the right view, but there are at least some individuals who would have looked at this and said this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking case.” — (Acosta, 04:15)

2. Internal Prosecutorial Conflict and Chain of Command Disputes

• Vilafana vs. Menschel: Vilafana, the line prosecutor, strongly disagreed with Menschel's willingness to let the case resolve with a state plea, arguing that the most serious provable offense—a federal sex trafficking charge—should be pursued and that victims and investigative agencies (FBI, ICE) should be consulted (07:30–10:50).
• Chain of Command: Menschel criticized Vilafana for bypassing chain-of-command and called her judgment into question, emphasizing the U.S. Attorney’s discretion in such matters.

Notable Quotes:

“It’s inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without consulting me or the investigative agencies, and it’s more inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE, the victims, and me.” — (Vilafana’s email, 10:00)

“Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate… It seriously calls your judgment into question.” — (Menschel’s reply, 10:57)

3. Handling (and Loss) of Critical Evidence

• Missing Computer Equipment: Vilafana made significant efforts to recover computers and media removed from Epstein’s Palm Beach home, suspecting they held vital surveillance footage and possibly child pornography. Epstein’s defense opposed these efforts at every turn, stalling the litigation and acquisition of the equipment (18:20–24:45).
• Leadership Indifference: Vilafana expressed frustration that supervisors appeared uninterested in aggressively pursuing the computer evidence, possibly underestimating its significance.

Notable Quote:

“Vilafana suspected the computers contained evidence that would have put this case completely to bed... her supervisors did not seem to recognize that.” — (Host summary, 58:26)

4. Negotiation Dynamics: Gradual Reduction of Incarceration Term & Concessions

• Initial Position: Acosta authorized a two-year minimum sentence as a negotiation starting-point, but internal emails and interviews reveal no clear rationale for this number, and Vilafana viewed it as “random” and divorced from federal guidelines (33:39–36:10).
• Defense Tactics: Epstein’s legal team persistently countered with proposals for home confinement, deeply objecting to incarceration and sex offender registration, and leveraged connections (Kirkland & Ellis attorneys) to escalate the case to Washington for added pressure (49:41).
• Sentence Slowly Eroded: The “two-year minimum” was whittled down: a plea to 18 months (likely to be 15 in practice), with further flexibility discussed regarding county vs. state prison, and other terms beneficial to Epstein.

Notable Quotes:

“24 months just makes no sense in the context of the guidelines. There’s no way to get to 24 months with this set of offenses.” — (Vilafana, 36:10)

“In the give and take of negotiations they might propose a concession, and [Acosta] was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge captured the conduct in an appropriate way.” — (Host paraphrasing Acosta, 77:04)

5. Meetings and Escalations: Intensifying Frustration

• Prosecution Team Frustrations: FBI and line prosecutors fumed over the failure to proceed federally. At one point, the FBI supervisor “yelled at Sloman” over what they saw as a capitulation (53:55).
• Negotiations with Defense Lawyers: Meetings with high-powered defense attorneys (e.g., Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz) focused on keeping the case at the state level (“federalism” arguments) and leveraging their political and legal stature (68:14–75:04).
• State’s Role: Only at a late stage did state prosecutors get involved in plea negotiations, with the ultimate concession permitting Epstein to plead to just one charge—facilitating county jail time (77:04–83:25).

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes with Timestamps

• Acosta on Prosecution Philosophy:

  “The Federal Responsibility in this unique situation was merely to serve as a backstop to state authorities to ensure that there was no miscarriage of justice.” (03:05)

• Vilafana’s Frustration with Process:

  “If you make it seem like the US Attorney doesn’t have faith in our investigation, Epstein has no incentive to make a deal. Your discussion makes it appear that my investigation is for show only and completely undermines my ability to deal with Epstein’s attorneys directly.” (10:20)

• Menschel Defends Chain of Command:

  “If you want to work major cases in the District, you must understand and accept the fact that there is a chain of command—something you disregard with great regularity.” (11:43)

• OIG Host’s Critical Commentary:

  “They talk about the chain of command and then try and pin it all on Acosta. You see what they’re doing here, right? And you see how the OIG let them off the hook.” (12:43)

• On the Missing Computers:

  “The defense efforts to put off the litigation concerning the computers was further evidence of the importance of this evidence. Vilafana suspected the computers contained evidence that would have put this case completely to bed.” (58:26)

• On the Two-Year Starting Point:

  “The 24 months just makes no sense in the context of the guidelines. There’s no way to get to 24 months with this set of offenses.” (36:10)

• On the Final Plea Negotiations:

  “In the give and take of negotiations they might propose a concession, and [Acosta] was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to which Epstein ultimately pled captured the conduct in an appropriate way.” (77:04)

---

Timeline of Key Segments

• [01:00]–[11:30]: Acosta’s internal rationale, federal/state jurisdiction debates, and the onset of division within the prosecution team.
• [14:43]–[28:46]: Dispute over investigation strategy, chain of command, and communication breakdowns.
• [33:39]–[44:12]: Negotiation details: rationale for two-year resolution, Menschel and Lori’s role, Vilafana’s objections, and how the two-year figure emerged and was justified—if at all.
• [49:41]–[58:26]: External legal pressures, high-powered defense escalation (Ken Starr/Kirkland & Ellis), stalling of the investigation, and near-complete erosion of the federal case.
• [68:14]–[83:25]: Endgame: final meetings with state and federal prosecutors, further concessions, Epstein’s sentence finalized with minimal time and maximum flexibility.

---

Conclusion & Forward Look

Host’s Note:
Bobby Capucci wraps with a critical assessment of the OIG’s apparent failure to assign clear responsibility, drawing attention to how process, legal culture, and hierarchical deference allowed a powerful defendant to manipulate and exhaust federal prosecution—reminding listeners that the story of the Epstein case is one of institutional failure at multiple levels.

“It’s apparent that the defense persistence achieved some measure of success, at least concerning the period of imprisonment, because the USAO failed to hold firm to its proposal of at least two years in prison.” (45:12)

The episode sets the stage for further exploration of why key prosecutorial decisions were made, how the plea was finalized, and the aftermath for the victims and accountability going forward.

---

For Further Details

• All OIG/OCR excerpts and correspondences referenced are reflected in the official report.
• Additional reading and episode resources are available in the episode description box.

End of summary for Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing the Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Parts 12-15)

Transcript

[Parent]

I used to feel so guilty handing over the tablet just to get things done. We all do. But honestly, I switched to lingokids. The guilt is gone and the kids are obsessed. Really?

[Lingokids Narrator]

Do they actually like it?

[Parent]

Oh, they love it. It's all games, music lessons and stories. They think they're just playing, but I know they're safe from weird ads and junk.

[Child]

Mom, look. I'm flying into space.

[Parent]

See? They're happy. I'm happy.

[Child]

Bingo. Kids.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Everything kids love.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Forget everything you had planned for this weekend because you are sitting on your couch and winning from the comfort of your own home. I'm here with Spin Quest, where you can play hundreds of slot games, all the table games you love, and you could even win real cash Prizes. New users 30 coin packs are on sale for [e-mail] SpinQuest is a free

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Narrator/Reporter]

What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. 1 Acosta's explanation for his decision to pursue a state based resolution Subsequent events showed that the decision to resolve the case through state charges was pivotal and OPR extensively questioned Acosta about his reasoning. In his OPR interview, Acosta explained the various factors that influenced his decision to pursue a state based resolution. Acosta said that although he, Sloman and Menshel believed the victims and believed Epstein did what he did, they were concerned about some of the legal issues and some of the issues in terms of testimony. Acosta also recalled discussions with his senior team about how the victims would do on the standard. Acosta told OPR that from the earliest point in the investigation, he considered whether because the state had indicted the case, the USAO should pursue it. The prosecution was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign state saying you're not doing enough, when in my mind the whole idea of the Petite Policy is to recognize that the state is an independent entity and that we should presume that what they're doing is correct and even if we don't like the outcome except in the most unusual of circumstances. Acosta told OPR that absent USAO intervention, the state's prosecution of Epstein would have become final and accordingly, it was prudent to employ Petite policy analysis. As Acosta explained in a public statement he issued in 2011, the Federal Responsibility in this unique situation was merely to serve as a backstop to state authorities to ensure that there was no miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a case that originated as a federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the state but was brought to the federal government because of a perception that the state charge was inadequate. In the latter circumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO's role only as preventing a manifest injustice. Acosta explained that no jail time was would have been a manifest injustice, but it was his understanding that if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two year sentence to a registerable offense, it would never have come to the office in the first place and therefore would not be viewed as manifest injustice. Acosta also told OPR that he was concerned that the federal prosecution in this case would result in unfavorable precedent because the Epstein case straddled the line between solicitation or prostitution, which Acosta described as traditional state concern, and trafficking, which has been an emerging matter of federal interest. Acosta contended that in 2006 it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's office to become involved in a state solicitations case, even one involving underage teens, because solicitation was the providence of of state prosecutors. Acosta told opr, I'm not saying it was the right view, but there are at least some individuals who would have looked at this and said this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking case. Acosta was concerned that if the USAO convicted Epstein of a federal charge, an appeal might result in an adverse opinion about the distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking. Acosta also told OPR that that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein's victims. In Acosta's estimation, a trial court in 2007 might have permitted victim shaming, which would have been traumatic for them. In addition, the fact that the state grand jury returned a one count indictment with a charge that would not require jail time suggested to Acosta that the state grand jury found little merit to the case. Acosta told opr, I do think it's important to look back on this and and try to be in the shoes of the thought process in 2006 and 2007, when trafficking prosecutions were fairly new, when more so than today, some jurors may have looked at this as prostitution and a judge's tolerance for victim shaming may have caused more hesitation on the part of the victims. Finally, Acosta told OPR that a state based resolution offered more flexibility in fashioning a sentence because he believed prosecutors would have difficulty persuading a federal district court in the Southern District of Florida to approve a federal plea for a stipulated binding sentence that differed from the otherwise applicable federal sentencing guidelines range in summarizing his thinking at the time, Acosta told opr, the way the matter came to the office was the state wasn't doing enough, it didn't provide for prison time, it didn't provide for registration, and then you had the restitution issue. There were legal issues, there were witness issues and we could go to trial and we may or may not prevail. Alternatively, we look at a pre indictment resolution and at various points the office went back and forth between a federal pre indictment resolution and a state pre indictment resolution. Acosta told OPR that in the end there was a preference for deferring to the state because in part the facts of the Epstein case at the time of appeared to constitute solicitation or prostitution rather than trafficking and a federal prosecution would be unchartered territory. Acosta explained that he did not view it as problematic to defer resolution of the case to the state, although as the Epstein case played out, the federal roll became more intrusive than he anticipated because the defense tried to get the state to circumvent and undermine the outcome. Menshel could not recall who initially suggested a state plea, but noted to OPR that his own emails make clear that that this course of action was ultimately decided by Alex Acosta. He referenced, among others, his May 14, 2007 email to Villefana informing her that Acosta was deciding how he wanted to handle the case. Menshel surmised that a state resolution accomplished two things that Acosta viewed as first, it resolved any petite policy concerns and second, it afforded more flexibility in sentencing the than a federal plea would have allowed. Menschel told OPR that the state plea proposal did not reflect any minimization of Epstein's conduct and that any state plea would have to be an offense that required sexual offender registration. He told opr, I don't think anybody sat around and said, you know, it's not a big deal. That was not the reaction that I think anybody had from the federal side of this case. Rather, Menshel said, the concern was if, if we charge him as proposed, there's going to be a trial.2 July 2007 Vilafana and Menshel disagree about the proposed state resolution Vilafana told OPR that she was angry when she received Menschel's July email explaining that he had proposed to Sanchez resolving the federal investigation through a state plea. In Vilafana's view, the proposed state resolution didn't make any sense and did not correspond to department policy requiring that a plea offer reflect the most serious, readily provable offense. In her view, a plea to a state charge obviously would not satisfy this policy. Vilafana told OPR that in her view, the USAM required the USAO to confer with the investigative agency about plea negotiations, and Vilafana did not believe the FBI would be in favor of a state plea. Vilafana also believed that the CVRA required attorneys for the government to to confer with victims before making a plea offer, but the victims had not been consulted about this proposal. Vilafana told OPR that she had met with some of the victims during the course of the investigation who had negative impressions of the state Attorney's office, and she believed that sending them back to the state Attorney's office was something those victims would not support. In light of these concerns, Vilafana emailed Menshel expressing her strong disagreement with with the process. It's inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without consulting me or the investigative agencies, and it's more inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ice, the victims, and me. The plea negotiations violate the ASHCROFT Memo, the U.S. attorney's Manual, and all of the various iterations of the victims rights legislation. Strategically, you, you have started the plea negotiations as though we were in a position of weakness, anxious to make the case go away by telling the defense that we will demand no federal conviction. We left the meeting on June 26 in a stronger position than when we entered. And your statement that a state resolution would satisfy us takes away that advantage. If you make it seem like the US Attorney doesn't have faith in our investigation, Epstein has no incentive to make a deal. Second, your discussion makes it appear that my investigation is for show only and completely undermines my ability to deal with Epstein's attorneys directly. I would like to make a presentation to the U.S. attorney, Jeff Sloman, Andy Laurie, and you with our side of the investigation and a revised indictment. The presentation will address the points raised by Epstein's counsel and will convince you all of the strength of the case. In the meantime, please feel free to direct all communication from Epstein's counsel to me. Menschel told OPR he realized Vilafana was very anxious to file charges in the case. Vilafana had put a tremendous amount of effort into the investigation and Menshel was not unsympathetic at all to her desires to pursue a federal case. However, as Menschel told opr, the Lefana supervisors, including Acosta, were trying to be a little more dispassionate and and her urgency was not respectful of Acosta's position. Menshel viewed the tone of Vilafana's email as highly unacceptable and her understanding of applicable law and policy incorrect. In particular, Menschel pointed out that although the Ashcroft memo requires prosecutors to charge the most readily provable offense, there is nevertheless room for flexibility and that the U.S. attorney has discretion, directly or through a designated supervisor such as Menshell, to waive the policy. Menschel's reply email began with a rebuke. Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls your judgment into question. As you well know, the U.S. attorney has not even decided whether to go forward with a prosecution in this matter. Thus, you should have respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations. Along the same lines, despite whatever contrary representations you made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the U.S. attorney and first assistant from the time when you first authorized the investigation of Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns about taking this case because of petite policy and a number of legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pro memo and indictment and included a definitive date for indictment. It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that the indictment of this matter was was a foregone conclusion, and that our decision to put off the date and listen to the defense attorney's concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about indicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization by anyone to seek an indictment in this case. In the email, Menchel went on to explain the circumstances of his conversation with Sanchez and respond to Vilafana's complaints.

[Lingokids Narrator]

The number one job of any parent is to look out for their kids.

[Child]

Sometimes mom doesn't let me use my tablet.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Well, that is part of looking out for you. Your parents want to make sure you're safe while you're having fun. I guess that's what we want too. We're Lingokids and we're here to help parents out. Lingokids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids because kids love it and parents can trust it.

[Child]

What's it got?

[Lingokids Narrator]

Lingokids has lots of fun stuff that parents can feel good about, like songs and shows, plus activities featuring beloved Disney characters from Disney's Moana, Frozen, and more.

[Child]

I love Disney stories.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Who doesn't? Lingokids has over 1 million daily users, so it looks like a lot of people love it already. Plus, when your parents download the Lingokids app, they can get a one week free trial.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Lingokids everything kids love.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Download the app for free.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite slots, live blackjack, live preps with a live dealer, new players 30 coin packs are on sale for 10 bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Parent]

When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Lily Sanchez called me before, not after the June 26 meeting. It was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea offer, but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason why this office is even agreed to look into Epstein matter in the first instance was because of concerns that the state had not done an adequate job in vindicating the victim's rights, as you and the agents conceded. Had Epstein been convicted of a felony that resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI nor our office would ever have interceded. You should also know that my discussion with Lily Sanchez has made the US Attorney's full knowledge. Had Lily Sanchez expressed interest in pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all the interested individuals in the case, including you and the agents. In any event, I failed to see how a discussion that went nowhere has hurt our bargaining position. I am also confident that no one on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show. Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the usam, or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the. You, Sam, not you. As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the U.S. attorney. Whether or not you are correct. Matters of policy are always within his purview, and any decision in that area ultimately rests with him. Finally, you may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with about this or any other case. If the U.S. attorney or the First Assistant desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will I direct Epstein's lawyers to communicate only with you. If you want to work major cases in the District, you must understand and and accept the fact that there is a chain of command. Something you disregard with great regularity. And just to interject here, it's funny. They talk about the chain of command and then try and pin it all on Acosta. You see what they're doing here, right? And you see how the OIG let them off the hook. Vilafana acknowledged to OPR that as Criminal Division Chief, Menschel had authority to deviate from the Ashcroft memo, requiring that guilty pleas be the most serious, readily provable offense. She disagreed, however, with the representation about her initial meeting with Acosta and Sloman regarding the Epstein investigation. Noting that Menshel had not been at the meeting, Vilafana told OPR no one had communicated to her the concerns Menshel mentioned, and she had not been given an opportunity to respond to those concerns. A week later, Vilafana replied to Menschel's email reiterating her concerns about the process and the and the filing charges against Epstein and not moving forward. Hi, Matt. My trial is over, so I now have time to focus back on this case and the email exchange. There are several points in the email I'd like to address, and I also would like to address where we are in the case. First, I wanted to address the comment about jumping the chain of command after that concern was brought to my attention several months ago. I have tried very hard to be cognizant of the chain of command. If there is a particular instance of violating the chain of command that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to discuss it with you. The statement that I have not respected Alex position regarding the prosecution of the case demonstrates why you hear the frustration in the tone of my email. For two and a half months, I have been asking about what that position is. I have asked for direction on whether to revise the indictment, whether there are other issues that Alex wants addressed prior to deciding whether whether there is additional investigation that needs to be done, etc. None of that direction has been forthcoming. So I'm left with victims and agents all demanding to know why we aren't presenting an indictment. Perhaps that lack of direction is through no fault of yours, but I have been dealing with a black box, so I do not know to whom I should address my frustration. My recollection of the original meeting with Alex and Jeff is quite different than your summary. In that meeting. I summarized the case in the state Attorney's office handling of it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time and money that would be required for an investigation. I said I was willing to invest that time and the FBI was willing to invest the money. But I didn't want to get to the end and then have the office be intimidated by a high powered lawyer. I was assured that that would not happen. Now I feel like there is a glass ceiling that prevents me from moving forward. While evidence suggests that Epstein is continuing to engage in criminal behavior. Additionally, the FBI has identified two more victims. If the case is not going forward, I think it's unfair to give hope to more girls. As far as promising the FBI that an indictment was a foregone conclusion, I don't know of any case in the office where an investigation has been opened with a plan not to indict. And I never presented an indictment package that has resulted in a declination. I didn't treat this case any differently. I worked with the agents to gather evidence and I prepared an indictment package that I believed establishes probable cause that a series of crimes have been committed. More importantly, I believe there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability. Lastly, I was not trying to dictate a meeting with the U.S. attorney who anyone else. I stated that I would like to schedule a meeting asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense attorneys extended to the FBI and an assistant in the office. With respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment. This office should seek to foster spirited debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial direction and discretion. My first and only concern in this case and my other child exploitation cases is the victims. If our personality differences threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case whom you trust more and who will also protect their rights. In the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to begin preparing a revised indictment package containing your suggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by Epstein's attorneys. And if there are any specific issues that you or the U.S. attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know. Vilafana did not get the meeting with Acosta that she requested. She viewed Menshel's message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even though she regarded Sloman as her friend, she did not feel she could reach out even to him, to raise her concerns. Menshel, however, told OPR that he did not order Vilafana to refrain from raising her concerns with Acosta, Sloman or Lori, and he did not believe his email to Villefana foreclosed her from meeting with Acosta. Rather, the context of this exchange is she is running roughshod over the U.S. attorney. And what I'm saying to her is there's the process. You're not in charge of it. I'm not in charge of it. Acosta's in charge of it. Acosta, who was apparently not aware of Villefana's email exchange with Menchel to, told OPR that from his perspective, Vilafano was not frozen out of the case and that he would have met with her had she asked him directly for a meeting. Alright, we're going to wrap up right there and in the next episode, we're going to pick up with Bea. Vilafana attempts to obtain the computer equipment missing from Epstein's Palm beach home, but the defense team opposes her efforts. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non Prosecution Agreement. Part B. Vilafana attempts to obtain the computer equipment missing from Epstein's Palm beach home, but the defense team opposes her efforts. As the USAO managers considered in July 2007 how to resolve the federal investigation, one item of evidence they did not have available to assist in that decision was the computer equipment removed from Epstein's home before Palm beach executed its search warrant. Although Vilafana took steps to obtain the evidence, defense counsel continued to oppose her efforts. Early in the federal investigation, Vilafana recognized the potential significance of obtaining the missing computer equipment. Vilafana told OPR that she and the FBI agents went through every photograph found in Epstein's home, but found none that could be characterized as child pornography. Nevertheless, Vilafana told OPR that the investigators had learned that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters and she believed he could have engaged in similar conduct in his Palm beach home. In addition, the computer equipment was potentially contained surveillance video that might have corroborated victim statements about visiting Epstein's home. More generally, in Vilafana's experience, individuals involved in child exploitation often possessed child pornography. Vilafana's co counsel, who had substantial experience prosecuting child pornography cases, similarly told opr, Epstein was a billionaire. We knew his house was wired with video. It would be unusual for someone with his capabilities not to be video recording his encounters. As the investigation continued, Villefana took various steps to acquire the computer equipment removed from Epstein's Palm beach residence. As noted previously in this report, in her initial request to Epstein's counsel for documents, she asked defense counsel to provide the computers, hard drives, CPUs and any other computer media including CD ROMs, DVDs, floppy disks, flash drives, etc. Removed from the residence. Although Lori subsequently narrowed the government's request for documents, the request for computer equipment remained. The defense, however, failed to comply with the request. Vilafana learned the computer equipment was in the possession of a particular individual. After consulting Department Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Office of Enforcement Operations about the appropriate legal steps to obtain the computer equipment, Vilafana described her plan in an email to Menshel. She asked Menshel for any comments or concerns, but OPR did not find an email response from him and Menchel told OPR that he did not recall Villefana's efforts to obtain the computer equipment. In May 2007, following the plan she had outlined to Menshel, Vilafana initiated action requiring production of the computer equipment by a particular date. In her email to Vilafana on June 29, 2007, Sanchez requested a two week extension indicating that she had hoped a state based resolution to the case would soon be reached. Vilafana advised her supervisors of the request and responded to Sanchez that she would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible. Nonetheless, Vilafana eventually agreed to the extension. Meanwhile, Epstein attorney Roy Black wrote separately to Vilafana demanding to know whether Vilafana had complied with applicable department policies before seeking the computer equipment. After further communications on this issue involving Black, Sanchez, Vilafana and Lori, Black took legal action that effectively halted production of the computer equipment to the USAO until the issue could be decided. By the court, which, as explained below, never happened because the parties entered into the NPA. C July 2007 the defense continues its efforts to stop the federal investigation in addition to their efforts to stop the government from obtaining the computer equipment, defense counsel also sent letters to the USAO dated July 6, 2007 and July 25, 2007, reiterating their objections to a federal investigation of of Epstein. The July 25, 2007 letter included a lengthy case analysis chart purporting to support the defense argument that Epstein had committed no federal offense. The July 25 letter also noted that the defense had been consulting with former Principal deputy chief of CEOs, reporting that she supports our position without reservation that this is not a matter upon which the federal statutes should be brought to bear. While the defense was reiterating its objections to the federal investigation, CEOs expressed its endorsement of Vilafana's legal analysis and proposed charges. On July 18, 2007, CEO Chief Osterbahn emailed Sloman Menschel and Lori stating that he had read Villefana's prosecution memorandum closely and noting that she did a terrific job. As we opined to Andy back in May, CEOs agrees with her legal analysis. Her charging decisions are legally sound. I have also reviewed the arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel. Their legal analysis is detailed and comprehensive, but I find none of their arguments persuasive. That is not to say that all the arguments are completely devoid of merit. I expect the judge to consider some of the arguments closely. Nevertheless, while the laws applicable here is not always crystal clear, the balance of available precedent favors us. From the prosecution memorandum, it's clear that Marie has anticipated the strongest legal arguments, scrutinized the applicable law, and has charged the case accordingly. And while with this prosecution, the government clearly faces a strong and determined defense team, it's a challenge well worth facing. I also happen to know that there is absolutely no concern about about facing the challenges this case presents.

[Lingokids Narrator]

The number one job of any parent is to look out for their kids.

[Child]

Sometimes mom doesn't let me use my tablet.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Well, that is part of looking out for you. Your parents want to make sure you're safe while you're having fun. I guess that's what we want too. We're Lingokids and we're here to help parents out. Lingokids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids because kids love it and parents can trust it.

[Child]

What's it got?

[Lingokids Narrator]

Lingokids has lots of fun stuff that parents can feel good about, like songs and shows, plus activities featuring beloved Disney characters from Disney's Moana, Frozen and more.

[Child]

I love Disney stories.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Who doesn't? Lingokids has over 1 million daily users so it looks like a lot of people love it already. Plus when your parents download the Lingokids app, they can get a one week free trial.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Lingokids everything kids love.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Download the app for free.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

I'm here with Spinquest where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now $30 coin packs are on sale for $10 for new users. It's [e-mail] that's S P I N

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

Q U S T.com Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Lingokids Narrator]

The right window treatments change everything. Your sleep, your privacy, the way every room looks and feels. @blinds.com We've spent 30 years making it surprisingly simple to get exactly what your home needs. We've covered over 25 million windows and have 50,000 five star reviews to prove we deliver. Whether you DIY it or want a pro to handle everything from measure to install, we have you covered. Real design professionals, free samples, zero pressure right now. Get up to 45% off site wide plus get a free professional [e-mail] rules and restrictions apply.

[Narrator/Reporter]

In closing, Osterbahn renewed his offer to have CEOs help you with the prosecution and to send whatever and whoever you need to assist. D Acosta decides on a resolution that that includes a two year term of incarceration the next critical step in the development of the NPA was the decision to propose a two year term of imprisonment. Although presented to the defense as the minimum the USAO would accept, in actuality, the two year proposal became only the starting point for the negotiations, with the result that the defense continued to chip away at it as the negotiations continued. The contemporaneous emails make no mention of any rationale for the decision to propose two years as the government's beginning negotiation position, and nobody with whom OPR spoke was able to recall how the decision was made. As discussed below, Acosta did offer OPR an explanation, but OPR was unable to find contemporaneous evidence supporting it. While the defense was communicating its objections to the federal investigation to Vilafana, Lori Menschel and Sloman, Vilafana continued moving forward, filing charges. On July 19, 2007, the day after receiving Osterbahn's email supporting a potential prosecution, Vilafana emailed Lori and Menshel seeking approval to take further investigative steps regarding three Epstein assistants. However, Menshel directed Vilafana to hold off until we decide what course of action we're going to take on Epstein, which should happen next week. Menshel told OPR that he did not specifically recall why he asked Vilafana to wait, but he assumed it was because Acosta was deciding what course of action to take on the case. On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menshel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta stating that he would be leaving the USAO effective August 6, 2007. 1 July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami early on the morning of Thursday, July 26, 2007, Vilafana informed Menshel that she was preparing a new draft indictment containing revisions he had suggested, including removal of all but three of the travel counts and a large number of the overt acts and the addition of overt acts and counts related to two additional victims. She would not, however, have the revised indictment ready in time for our discussion today. At their 2pm meeting, Menschel told OPR that the fact that he had both proposed revisions to the indictment and also directed Vilafana to delay the investigative steps involving the assistants indicated that he was trying to do something with the case, but was waiting for Acosta to decide the underlying issue of whether to proceed with federal charges. Acosta made the decision on or before July 26, 2007. On that afternoon, Vilafana met in Miami with Menchel. She told OPR that Sloman as well as the FBI case agents and their supervisors were also present with Lori, anticipating and participating by telephone, Vilafana told OPR that she expected that the meeting requested by Menshel would address the direction of the investigation. However, Villefana told OPR that everyone had assembled, Menshel entered the room and stated that Acosta has decided to offer a two year deal. According to Vilafana, Mitchell left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Vilafana shocked and stunned. Mitchell told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he strongly disputed Vilafana's description of events, asserting that it would have been directly at odds with his management style to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta's decision, and leave without discussion. Acosta told OPR that that he had decided and endorsed his resolution at some point, but he did not recall being aware that Menshel was going to announce the decision at the July 26 meeting. In addition, although Acosta did not recall the circumstances of Menshel relaying of that decision. He said it would have been consistent with his decision for Menschel to do so. Neither Sloman nor Lorre recalled the meeting the FBI case agent recalled attending a meeting at the USAO in Miami while with her CO case agent and supervisors, together with Villefana Lori by telephone and Mechlin Sloman, at which they discussed how to proceed with the Epstein case. According to the case agent at this meeting, the FBI insisted that Epstein be registered for life as a sexual offender and the CO case agent advocated for waiting until the court had ruled on the USAO's ability to obtain Epstein's computer equipment. Regardless of exactly how Acosta's decision regarding the two year term was communicated to Vilafana and the FBI agents, and regardless of who initially proposed the specific term, the record shows that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer Epstein a resolution that included a two year term of imprisonment. As he acknowledged alright folks, we're going to wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with the subject's explanation for decision to offer Epstein a sentence with a two year term of incarceration. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. Part 2. The subject's explanations for the decision to offer Epstein a sentence was with a two year term incarceration. Villefana asserted that she was not consulted about the specific two year term before the decision was made. Vilafana told OPR that she had worked hard to develop a strong case and none of her supervisors had identified to her any specific problem with the case that in her view explained the decision to extend an offer for a two year sentence. Vilafana told OPR the that Menshel provided no explanation for his decision during the July 26, 2007 meeting and Vilafana did not ask for an explanation because she accepted his statement that it was Acosta's decision. Vilafana described the proposal as random and told we're all sentencing guideline people, so 24 months just makes no sense in the context of the guidelines. There's no way to get to 24 months with this set of offenses. Sloman also told OPR that he did not know how the decision to offer a two year plea offer was reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from Menshel, Lori and Vilafana. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an assessment by Menschel and Laurie of the litigation risks presented by the case. Sloman added that that he did not know how a two year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either state or federal sentencing guidelines. Lori likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two year term was decided upon or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the defense as the most Epstein would accept and that the decision would have been reached by Acosta following extended consideration, research and end discussion among Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lori and Vilafana. Menchel told OPR that he did not recall discussing a two year plea deal with Acosta or who reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Menschel also told opr, however, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the contemplated federal charges, Epstein would have felt he had nothing to lose and undoubtedly would have chosen to take the case to trial. Menshel recalled believing that there was a real risk that the USAO might lose at trial and in so doing might cause more trauma to the victims, particularly those who were reluctant to testify. Menshel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years as a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not if we took this case to trial we would risk losing everything and if we felt we could have gotten more time we would have without having to press it to trial. Acosta told OPR that I had decided and endorsed the two year resolution at some point and that it resulted from back and forth discussion over the course of some days or a week or two. As noted earlier in this report, Acosta viewed the USAO's role in this case merely as a backstop to the state's prosecution, which which he explained to OPR was a polite way of saying encouraging the state to do a little bit more. Acosta said that he understood two years imprisonment to have represented the sentence Epstein faced under one of the original charges the Palm Beach Police was considering at the outset of the state investigation. Acosta also told OPR that he understood that the Palm Beach Police Department would not have asked the FBI to investigate Epstein if the state had pursued the appropriate charges. In other words, in Acosta's view, this was rightly or wrongly, an analysis that distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest injustice versus what is the appropriate federal outcome to that, Acosta told OPR that he believed he had discussed his concerns about the case with Lori Sloman or Menchel, although he could not recall any specific conversations with them either. Vilafana drafts a term sheet listing the requirements of a potential agreement with the defense. A meeting with defense counsel was scheduled for Tuesday, July 31, 2007. Villefana told OPR that between July 26 and July 30, 2007, she had some sort of discussion with her supervisors that resulted in her creation of a term sheet identifying the proposed terms for resolving the federal investigation through state charges. Sometime during that period, Vilafana left a voicemail message for Menchel. During the OPR interviews, neither Vilafana nor Menshel could recall what Vilafana said in that message. On July 30, 2007, Menshel emailed Vilafana, I received your voicemail this morning. I don't see any reason to change your approach. I think telling them that unless the state resolves this in a way that appropriately vindicates our interests and and the interests of the victims, we will seek federal charges conveys that were serious. While Lily Sanchez has represented in the past that this would likely not happen. I never conveyed it in quite these terms before. In any event, this is the course of action that the U.S. attorney feels comfortable taking at this juncture. The following day, July 31, 2007, Vilafana emailed a one page terms of Epstein's non prosecution agreement to Sloman, Menschel and and Lori. Vilafana told OPR she had never before seen or heard of a non prosecution agreement that it was a concept completely foreign to her. Villefana told OPR that the idea of styling the two year state plea agreement with Epstein as a non prosecution agreement came from Acosta. Although Menshel may have communicated that terminology to her. According to Vilafana, she asked that it include a mechanism for the victims to to be provided monetary compensation through U.S. code 18 section 2255 in lieu of the restitution that would have been available if Epstein were pleading guilty to federal charges. Acosta told OPR that he developed and approved the term sheet before the document was presented to defense counsel. Two terms were dropped from Villefana's draft, one providing that the agreement would apply only to already identified victims and and another requiring the deal to be accepted and Epstein to plead guilty within the month. The final term sheet was as terms of Epstein's non prosecution. Epstein pleads guilty to an information filed by the Palm Beach County State attorney's office charging him a lewd and lascivious battery on a child in violation of Florida Statute 800.044B Solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution in violation of Florida statute 796.03 and c engaging in sexual activity with minors at least 16 years of age in violation of Florida statute 794.05.

[Parent]

I used to feel so guilty handing over the tablet just to get things done. We all do. But honestly, I switched to Lingokids. The guilt is gone and the kids are obsessed. Really?

[Lingokids Narrator]

Do they actually like it?

[Parent]

Oh, they love it. It's all games, music lessons and stories. They think they're just playing, but I know they're safe from weird ads and junk.

[Child]

Mom, look. I'm flying into space.

[Parent]

See? They're happy, I'm happy.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Mango Kids Everything kids love.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spinquest Experience exclusives. Blackjack, roulette, baccarat, and even live dice with craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to. And right now, new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play [e-mail] Spin Quest is a free

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Podcast Host (The Lapsed Fan)]

Boss, what's the most dreaded question that you can get when you tell people you host a podcast called the Lapsed Fan?

[Narrator/Reporter]

Ugh, it's what is it about?

[Podcast Host (The Lapsed Fan)]

And why is that, do you think?

[Narrator/Reporter]

Because to like pro wrestling is to lose the respect of others.

[Podcast Host (The Lapsed Fan)]

Now what if we told you there's a podcast that explains exactly why that is and why it's kind of deserved? For over a decade, we've taken fact finding missions through the thicket of half truths that is wrestling history. We watch old matches, call out carnies, laugh at our own jokes, and have so much fun doing it that some people actually can't handle it. Think wrestling is an escape from real life? Think again. Same power games, same office politics, same people lying to your face. Just with entrance music and absolutely no company health insurance under any circumstances. All I offer is opportunity, not benefits. As do we, Vince. The Lapsed Fan Podcast Come for the wrestling history. Stay for the uncomfortable truth about why it used to be better and why you still care.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Epstein and the State Attorney's office make a joint binding recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison without any opportunity for withholding, adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control. In lieu of imprisonment, Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the state and the right to appeal. Epstein agrees that if any of the victims identified in the federal investigation file suit pursuant to U.S. code 18 section 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. district Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and subject matter, while Epstein will not contest the identified victims or persons who, while minors, were victims of Violations of Title 18, United States Code Section 2422 and or 2423. After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office will close their investigation. The USAO presents Epstein with key terms of a plead guilty to state charges requiring a two year term of incarceration and sexual offender registration and agree to a means for the victims to obtain monetary damages. Although the USAO term sheet was presented to Epstein's defense team on on July 31, 2007, it took almost another two months to reach a final agreement in the form of the npa. The contemporaneous emails show that over the course of those two months, defense counsel offered multiple counter proposals to the USAO's stated terms and alternated between working out the state plea disposition and seeking an alternative federal plea agreement. The emails made clear that as the negotiations intensified in In September of 2007, the prosecutors became increasingly frustrated, particularly with what they perceived as the defense tactic of agreeing to terms and provisions but then backtracking or altering the agreed upon terms in subsequent communications. It's apparent that the defense persistence achieved some measure of success, at least concerning the period of imprisonment, because the USAO failed the whole firm to its proposal of at least two years in prison. The USAO did, however, consistently reject defense proposals to change other terms, particularly the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. A July 31, 2007 the USAO presents its proposal to the defense team, which makes a counteroffer. Menschel, Sloman, Lori Vilafana and the case agents met with Epstein's attorneys, Lefcourt, Sanchez, and Black on July 31, 2007, with Menshel leading the meeting for the USAO. The USAO presented the term sheet and Vilafana distributed a federal sentencing guideline calculation showing that if she prosecuted federally, Epstein faced a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months of incarceration. Vilafana recalled that during the meeting, Epstein's attorneys opposed the requirement of sexual offender registration, argued that Epstein would not be safe in prison, suggested that Epstein serve a sentence of home confinement or community control in lieu of incarceration and emphasized that a state resolution provided greater sentencing flexibility. Vilafana told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys expressed concern during the meeting about Epstein's security in the state prison and argued for a home confinement sentence, Menschel suggested Epstein plead to a federal charge so that he could serve his time in a federal facility. A few days after the meeting, Vilafana emailed Menschel stating that she had figured out a way to do a federal plea with two and a half year cap. Although Acosta had authorized a plea to state charges, emails and other correspondence show that during negotiations, the parties also considered structuring a plea around federal charges in addition to the state charges. On behalf of the defense team, Sanchez followed up on July 31, 2007 meeting with an August 2, 2007 letter to mention we welcome your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither appropriate NOR Acceptable to Mr. Epstein as the dangers the state prison system poses risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our proposal is significantly punitive and if implemented would, we believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated. Sanchez added, we must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54 year old man who has never been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life. The significantly punitive proposal described in the defense letter involved no period of mandatory incarceration. Instead, Sanchez suggested two years of home confinement with with regular reporting to the visits from any community control officer, payment of restitution damages, court and probationary costs and law enforcement costs, random drug testing, community service, psychological counseling and a prohibition on unsupervised contact with the victims. The letter specifically referred to the victim damages recovery procedure and the government had proposed under US Code 18 Section 2255 and represented that Epstein was prepared to fully fund the identified group of victims which are the focus of the USAOThat is the 12 individuals noted at the meeting on July 31, 2007. Under the Defense proposal, the state would incarcerate Epstein only if he failed to comply with the terms of supervised custody. Sanchez also advised that the defense team would be seeking a meeting with Acosta. Alright, we're going to wrap up right there and and in the next episode we're going to pick up with Part B. In an August 3, 2007 letter, the USAO states that a two year term of imprisonment is the minimum that will vindicate the Federal interest. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the Description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. In an August 3, 2007 letter, the USAO states that a two year term of imprisonment is the minimum that will vindicate the federal interest. Vilafana told OPR that she and her managers agreed the counteroffer was unacceptable and she conferred with Lori or Menshel about the government's response. Vilafana drafted for Menshel's signature a letter asserting that the USAO came considered a two year term of imprisonment to be the minimum sentence that would vindicate the federal interest in the Epstein investigation. Vilafana's draft stated that the USAO has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein, but was willing to allow Epstein to enter a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11c 1c to a federal felony charge with a binding recommendation for a two year term of incarceration. Vilafana specified that Epstein would also be required to concede liability under U.S. code 18 section 2255 for all of the victims identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that formed the basis of an initial planned charging instrument. Menschel made several substantive changes to Villefana's draft letter. He specified that a two year term of of state imprisonment was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menschel wrote that the USAO would be willing to explore a federal conviction and retain the reference to Rule 11C plea. Menschel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein would be required to plead guilty. Menshel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman Laurie and Vilafana. The final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menschel's redraft except that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11C. Menchel told OPR that in his view, the two year sentence established a floor for negotiations and if Epstein rejected the offer, subsequent offers would require him to accept more jail time rather than less. Mitchell told OPR that the USAO was leaving our options open by retaining the option of a federal plea because he thought the defense was trying to get him into a federal penitentiary. The letter's deadline of August 17, 2007 for acceptance of the government's offer was intended to accommodate Vilafana's request that the deadline provide her with enough time to go to New York City, pursue investigative steps involving two of Epstein's assistants, do witness interviews, and take additional legal steps to obtain Epstein's computers. If Epstein rejected the deal, Menshel told OPR that he considered Aug. 17 to be a firm deadline. If you tell someone they have two weeks, it should be two weeks. Menshel signed and sent the letter on Friday, August 3, 2007, which was his last day as the USAO. But before joining a private law firm. The following Monday, August 6, 2007, Vilafana contacted Menshel by email at his new firm to inquire whether the letter to Epstein's counsel had gone out. On Friday, Vilafana explained to the OPR she wanted to know whether the letter went out because if the letter didn't go out, we can make this all go away and restart. Menchel confirmed to her that he had sent the letter out by email. Later that day, the West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor told Sloman that he understood Epstein had rejected the USAO's proposal and he asked when Epstein would be charged. Vilafana told OPR that the squad supervisor yelled at sloman about the USAO's decision not to prosecute Epstein federally. Sloman similarly told OPR that the squad supervisor, like Vilafana and the agents, felt very strongly about the case. August September 2007 Epstein hires additional attorneys who meet with Acosta. 1 Acosta agrees to meet with Epstein's new attorneys. Vilafana told OPR that Epstein's team was incensed that Acosta would not meet with them and that the USAO had set such a short deadline to respond to its offer. Around this time, Epstein added to his team Kenneth Starr and and Jay Lefkowitz, two prominent lawyers from the law firm kirklandinellis, whom Acosta knew from his employment decade earlier as an associate at the firm. On the evening of August 6, 2007, Sloman emailed Acosta just saw Menchel. I didn't know Kirkland made a call into you. You were right. Unbelievable. During their OPR interviews, neither Acosta nor Sloman remembered the call from Kirkland and Ellis and could provide no additional information about the contact. A reply email from Acosta to Sloman indicates that Kirkland and Ellis attorneys were considering elevating to the department their objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. In that email, Acosta stated they are likely to go to dc. We should strategize a bit. We are not changing positions and that should be made clear. The next day, Acosta wrote to Sloman Epstein's attorneys want to go to D.C. on the case on the grounds of a process fell and I have not met with them. I'm concerned that this will delay matters. I'm thinking of heading this off by one agreeing to meet to discuss general legal policy only in the matter in which DC has arguable jurisdiction, while making clear that we are not talking about the details of the case and 2 asking CEOs Chief Osterbahn Keith to participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting thoughts Acosta told OPR that he had no concerns about departmental scrutiny of the NPA scheme and that if anything, he was concerned whether the department might direct the USAO to drop the case Are

[Lingokids Narrator]

you a parent who feels guilty about screen time?

[Parent]

No.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Well, no, not you sweetheart, but your mommy and daddy do.

[Child]

Why?

[Lingokids Narrator]

Because too many apps are filled with AI garbage, inappropriate videos and random content.

[Child]

Like a dancing potato.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Worse.

[Lingokids Narrator]

That's what parents worry about. We're Lingokids and we're here to help parents out. Lingokids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids because kids love it and parents can trust it. They want something safe and fun. Yes, fun, but also something that actually

[Child]

teaches you big words like fomosynthesis. Fomosynthesis. Fomosynthesis.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Yeah, close enough. And they want fun songs, videos and interactive games that help you grow, not

[Child]

turn you into a zombie that bites other zombies. And then the zombies take over the world and then fly to space and live on the moon and fly in rocket ships on planets with loads of candy. Yep, Mango kids.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Everything kids love.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite spots live Blackjack, live craps with a live dealer. New players $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Podcast Host (Solomonster Sounds Off)]

Are you a wrestling fan? Even if you're not, I'll bet you're friends with someone who is. There's a lot of wrestling these days. Whether it's on TV in front of 50,000 people or at your local armory in front of 500. You never know what to expect even Bad Bunny's been in the ring before. Yes, that Bad Bunny. If you want to keep up with the good, the bad and the ugly of the wonderful world of pro wrestling, check out Solomonster Sounds Off. That's my podcast. I've been a wrestling fan as far back as I could form sentences, and I've got a lot of opinions on it. Since 2007, the premier weekly wrestling podcast, and the only one you really need is Solomonster Sounds Off. Find it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Two Leading to the meeting with defense counsel Investigative steps are postponed and the defense continues to oppose Vilafana's efforts to obtain the computer evidence. On August 8, 2007, Vilafana informed Acosta that she had spoken with Osterbahn, who was willing to join a meeting with the defense. Although he could not do so in person until after August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order to stay firm in our August 17th deadline. Vilafana also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein's assistance in New York and to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former employees there, noting that there was some concern about taking the proposed investigative steps. While we were trying to negotiate a plea, Vilafana asked Acosta for guidance. Lori also emailed Acosta and Sloman asking that the USAO stick to our deadline if possible. Lori pointed out that CEOs has no approval authority and opined it was a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this case to different agencies. Acosta replied, this will end up at the department anyhow if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Bringing the chief of CEOs in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit, it's worth it. As a result, the investigative steps were postponed. On August 10, 2007, Vilafana emailed Lori, inquiring whether she could still go ahead with the New York trip and whether she could oppose Black's request to stay the litigation concerning the government's efforts to obtain Epstein's computer equipment until after Acosta's meeting with the defense team. Vilafano was reluctant to delay the litigation and reported to Lurie that agents recently had interviewed a girl who began seeing Epstein at age 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant. On August 13, 2007, Vilafana advised Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of litigation. However, Sanchez reached out to Lori on August 22, 2007 and obtained his agreement to a joint request for a stay until the week after Acosta's meeting with defense counsel, which was scheduled for September 7, 2007. Vilafana told OPR that in her opinion, the defense efforts to put off the litigation concerning the computers was further evidence of the importance of this evidence. Vilafana suspected the computers contained evidence that would have put this case completely to bed. She believed that access to the computer evidence would strengthen the government's negotiating position, but that her supervisors did not seem to recognize that. Vilafana said that she did not understand why her supervisors were uninterested in determining what the computers contained. Instead, they instructed Villefana to keep calling the judge to ask for a delay in the litigation proceedings. Sloman told OPR that he recalled an issue about the computers but did not recall what the thinking was at the time about pursuing that evidence or why Vilafana was ordered to stand down. Acosta, Menshel and Lori all told OPR that they did not recall Vilafana's effort to obtain the computer evidence or that they had been in litigation relating to it. Lori, however, told OPR that the computers might have contained very powerful evidence that possibly could have changed our advice to Acosta or his decision making. In his OPR interview, Menshel was uncertain whether the computer evidence would have been useful, but also acknowledged the OPR you always want more as a prosecutor. On August 31, 2007, in preparation for the upcoming September 7, 2007 meeting with defense counsel that he planned to attend, CEOs Chief Osterbahn traveled to the West Palm beach to meet with Vilafana and the case agents and examine the case file. He explained to OPR that he wanted to see the file before meeting with the defense so that he could best represent the interests of the prosecution team and that he was in favor of going forward with the case. According to Vilafana, during his review of the file, Osterbahn told her that the case was really good and offered to assist Villefana at trial. On September 6, 2007, the day before the meeting with defense counsel, Sloman sent Vilafana an email asking, please refresh my recollection. What is the deal on the table? Sloman told OPR that his question reflected the fact that in his capacity as fausa, he was involved in a hundred other things. At that time, Vilafana sent Sloman the term sheet and explained to him Ewan, Matt, Menshel and I had also discussed a possible federal plea to an information charging a 371 conspiracy with a Rule 11 plea with a two year cab, but I think Matt must have asked Alex about it and was nixed. Vilafana continued, there are three concerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. First, that there is an absolute drop dead date for accepting or rejecting because it is strategically important that we indict before the end of September, which means September 25th. Second, the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as Drew Osterbahn politely reminded me, is required under the law. And third, I do not want to make any promises about allowing Epstein to self surrender because I still believe that we have a good chance of getting him detained. Vilafana added that the Palm beach chief had alerted the FBI that an upcoming news article would report that Epstein was going to plead to a state charge and that Palm beach chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal. Sloman forwarded Vilafana's email to Acosta with a note that read simply FYI. Later that evening, Vilafana circulated to Sloman, Lori and Osterbahn two alternative documents, a draft federal plea agreement and a draft npa. The draft federal plea agreement, following the USAO standard format, called for Epstein to plead guilty to a five year conspiracy under US Code 18, Section 371 to entice minors to engage in prostitution, an offense requiring registration as a sexual offender with a Rule 11C binding sentence of two years imprisonment. The draft NPA contained the terms presented to the defense team on July 31, 2007 and called for Epstein to enter a state plea by September 28, 2007. Vilafana told OPR that because she had never seen a non prosecution agreement before, she replied on a template she found either using USAO or the department's internal online resources, but she did not do any additional research regarding the use of a non prosecution agreement. All right, we're going to wrap up this episode here and then the next episode will pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Are you a parent who feels guilty about screen time?

[Parent]

No.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Well, no, not you sweetheart, but your mommy and daddy do.

[Child]

Why?

[Lingokids Narrator]

Because too many apps are filled with AI garbage, inappropriate videos and random content

[Child]

like a dancing potato or worse.

[Lingokids Narrator]

That's what parents worry about. We're Lingokids and we're here to help parents out. Lingokids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids because kids love it and parents can trust it. They want something safe and fun. Yes, fun, but also something that actually

[Child]

teaches you big words like fomosynthesis. Fomosynthesis. Fomosynthesis.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Yeah, close enough. And they want fun songs, videos and interactive games that help you grow, not

[Child]

turn you into a zombie that bites other zombies and then the zombies take over the world and then fly to space and live on the moon and flying rocket ships on planets with loads of candy. Yep, mango cakes.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Everything kids love.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

I'm here with spinquest where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now, thirty dollar coin packs are on sale for $10 for new users. It's all at stake. Spinquest.com that's S P-I-N Q U-E-S-T.com Spinquest

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Narrator/Reporter]

3 September 7, 2007 Acosta, other USAO attorneys and FBI supervisors meet with Epstein, Attorney Starr, Lefkowitz and Sanchez On Friday, September 7, 2007, Acosta, Sloman, Vilafana, Vilafana's co counsel Osterbahn and one or two supervisory FBI agents met at the USAO's West Palm beach office while defense attorney Sanchez and for the first time, Star and Lefkowitz. This was Acosta's first meeting with Epstein's defense team. Vilafana understood the purpose of this meeting was to afford Epstein's counsel an opportunity to make a pitch as to why the case should not be prosecuted federally. Vilafano recalled that at a pre meet before defense counsel arrived, Acosta did not express concern about the viability of the prosecution or the strength of the case. Acosta told OPR that the meeting was not a negotiation but a chance for the defense to present their arguments, which were made by Starr and focused primarily on federalism. Vilafana similarly recalled that the meeting mainly consisted of the defense argument that the Epstein case should remain a state matter in which the USAO should not interfere. Both Vilafana and her co counsel recalled that Starr addressed himself directly to Acosta and that Starr, who had held the Senate confirmed positions in the government, commented to Acosta that he and Acosta were the only people in this room who have run the gauntlet of the confirmation by the Senate. Acosta did not recall the comment, but but he told OPR back in July, we had decided that we were going forward that either there is going to be pre indictment resolution or we go forward with an indictment. The September meeting did not alter or shift our position. Vilafana told OPR that after hearing the defense argument, Acosta reiterated that the federal interest in the case could be vindicated only by a state plea to an offense that required sexual offender registration, resulted in a two year term of incarceration and was subject to the US Code 18 section 2255 process for providing compensation to the victims. When defense counsel objected to the registration requirement, Acosta health firm and he also rejected the defense proposal for a sentence of home confinement. In a subsequent email exchanged with Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigel Mandelker, who supervised CEOs Osterbahn reported that the meeting was non eventful, noting that defense counsel argued federalism and might approach Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher to present that argument directly to her.6 September 2007 the plea negotiations intensify and the Process the Required Term of Imprisonment is Reduced Acosta had dispensed with the August 17, 2007 plea deadline specified in Menschel's August 3, 2007 letter in order to allow the defense to meet with him. After that meeting, and although Vilafana continued to plan to file charges on September 25, no new plea deadline was established and the negotiations continued through most of September. The defense used that time to push the USAO to make concessions because Acosta was not willing to compromise on the issue of sexual offender registration or providing a means through which the victims could seek monetary damages. The negotiations focused on the term of imprisonment. As the contemporaneous emails show, the USAO did not hold to its position that a two year term of imprisonment was the minimum that the USAO would accept to reach an agreement with the defense on Epstein's sentence. The USAO explored possible pleas in either federal or state court or both, and Vilafana spent considerable time and effort working with defense counsel on developing alternative pleas with various outcomes. In the course of that process, the agreement was revised to require that Epstein accept a sentence of 18 months with the understanding that under the state sentencing procedures he would likely serve just 15 months. The incarceration term is reduced from 24 months to to 20 months. Shortly after the September 7, 2007 meeting, Epstein attorney Gerald Lefcourt, who had not been present at the meeting, spoke with both DaCosta and Lori and made a new counteroffer, proposing that Epstein served 15 months in jail followed by 15 months in home confinement. On the afternoon of Monday, September 10, 2007, Vilafana emailed Sloman identifying issues she wanted to discuss with him, including her concern that defense counsel was pushing for a resolution that would allow Epstein to avoid incarceration and possibly sexual offender registration. Vilafana stated that Lefcourt's counteroffer was a reasonable counteroffer in light of our starting position of 24 months, but added that it was a really low sentence. Vilafana noted that the Revised charges involved 19 victims, so the defense proposal for a 15 month sentence amounted to less than one month per victim. Vilafana requested that whatever the U.S. attorney decides to do, the agreement with Epstein should follow a version of my written non prosecution agreement in order to avoid any state shenanigans and to keep the defense on a strict timeline. Later that day, Vilafana circulated to Acosta and Sloman a revised NPA that called for a 20 month jail sentence to be followed by 10 months of home confinement. This redrafted NPA contained a provision that specified with credit for gain time, Epstein shall serve at least 17 months in a state correctional institution. Acosta reviewed the revised NPA and amended it to include a statement clarifying that it was Epstein's obligation to undertake discussions with the State of Florida to ensure compliance with these procedures. Vilafana sent her version of the revised NPA to left court that afternoon and forwarded Acosta's proposed change to him the following day after she learned of it. On September 11, 2007, the court contacted Villefana to inquire whether USAO had to be prepared to proceed with the litigation concerning the computers. The following day, at Sloman's direction, Vilafana asked the court to delay the hearing and the court rescheduled it for the following week. At the same time, anticipating that plea negotiations would fail, Vilafana circulated a revised indictment to her co counsel and Osterbahn, seeking their feedback before sending it through the chain of command. Vilafana also sent Osterban the revised NPA and told him she was still shooting for 9:25 to bring charges assuming the defense declined the USAO's offer. The counter offering is unfortunate, but I suppose it's understandable. That afternoon Lori asked Vilafana, what's our latest offer? Vilafana responded, Plead to the three specified state charges, a 30 month sentence split 20 in jail and 10 in community control and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. We also put in deadlines for a plea and sentencing date the number one

[Lingokids Narrator]

job of any parent is to look out for their kits.

[Child]

Sometimes mom doesn't let me use my tablet.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Well, that is part of looking out for you. Your parents want to make sure you're safe while you're having fun. I guess that's what we want too. We're Lingokids and we're here to help parents out. Lingokids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids because kids love it and parents can trust it.

[Child]

What's it got?

[Lingokids Narrator]

Lingokids has lots of fun stuff that parents can feel good about, like songs and shows, plus activities featuring beloved Disney characters from Disney's Moana, Frozen and more.

[Child]

I love Disney stories.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Who doesn't? Lingokids has over 1 million daily users, so it looks like a lot of people love it already. Plus, when your parents download the Lingokids app, they can get a one week free trial.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Lingokids everything kids love.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Download the app for free.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com, the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite slots, live blackjack, live craps with a live dealer. New players $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Narrator/Reporter]

B September 12, 2007 the USAO and the Defense Counsel Meet with the State Attorney Although the USAO and the defense counsel had been discussing resolving the federal investigation with a plea to state charges, there is no evidence that the USAO involved the State Attorney's office in those discussions until September 12, 2007. On that day, Lori Vilafana and another USAO supervisor who would be replacing Lori as manager of the usaos would West Palm beach office and Epstein's attorneys Lefkowitz, Lefcourt and Goldberger met with State Attorney Barry Krisher and Assistant State Attorney Lana Belihovlich. Other than Vilafana, few of the participants had any memory of the meeting or the results of it. The available evidence indicates that the USAO made additional concessions during the meeting. Vilafana told OPR that during the meeting the group discussed the draft npa, but she did not think they gave a copy to Krischer and Belijovlik. Neither Krischer nor Belijovlik expressed concern about proceeding as the USAO was proposing. According to Villefana, Belihovlic explained that a plea to the three state counts identified in the draft NPA would affect the state sentencing guidelines, and it would be better for the guidelines calculation if Epstein pled guilty to just one of the three counts. Vilafana recalled that when Belihovlich confirmed that Epstein would be required to register as a sexual offender if he pled to any of the three charges, Lurie, speaking for the usao, agreed to allow Epstein to enter his plea to just one state charge in addition to the pending state indictment, and the defense attorney selected the charge of procurement of minors to engage in prostitution. Laurie, however, disputed Vilafana's recollection. He made the final decision stating that it was illogical to conclude that he had the authority to change the terms of the agreement unilaterally. During the meeting, the defense counsel raised concerns about Epstein serving time in state prison. Vilafana also told OPR that Lori, the other supervisor, and she made clear during the meeting that they expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, seven days a week during the entirety of his sentence and and they did not particularly care whether it was in state or a local facility. Belihovlich explained to OPR that in order for Epstein to serve his time in a county facility rather than state prison, his sentence on each charge could be no more than 12 months. So that for example, consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months totaling 18 months could be served in the county jail. Vilafana told OPR our thing was incarceration to 24 hours a day. So during this meeting I remember the defense talking about a one year count followed by a six month count that Epstein could serve them back to back but at the county jail rather than having to go to a state facility. But then I said if you do that, it's still going to have to be around the clock incarceration. And Barry Krisher said yes. And he said that to avoid Epstein being extorted while incarcerated, he would be kept in solitary confinement. Vilafana did not recall whether she and Lori agreed to an 18 month sentence during the meeting, but she told OPR that in her view, allowing Epstein to serve his sentence in the county jail was not a concession because he would be incarcerated regardless. Neither Lori nor the other USAO supervisor present could recall any substantive details of the September 12, 2007 meeting, and Krisher and Belojovlik told OPR they did not remember the meeting at all. Krisher did, however, recall that he was not offended at all when he learned of the proposed federal resolution requiring Epstein to plead to both pending state indictment and an additional charge requiring sexual offender registration. Explaining to OPR that Epstein was going to plead guilty to my indictment, we were going to add an additional charge, he was going to become a registered sex offender, and he was going to go actually due time, but which he hadn't done up to this point, Krisher asked, why would I turn that down? Krischer also noted that at that time sexual offender registration was not the norm in Florida and he recognized that it was clearly something that was important to the U.S. attorney's office. Acosta told OPR that he did not recall if he learned what transpired at the Sept. 12 meeting, nor did he recall why the USAO team agreed to permit Epstein to plead guilty to only one charge. Acosta told opr, however, that he recognized that Villefana and Lori needed some degree of discretion to negotiate, that in the give and take of negotiations they might propose a concession, and he was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to which Epstein ultimately pled captured the conduct in an appropriate way. Although Epstein's attorneys expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a county facility rather than state prison, one of Epstein's attorneys alternatively expressed interest in Epstein serving time in a federal facility. And along with discussions about the possible state resolution, the USAO and Epstein's counsel also discussed a possible federal plea with a sentence running concurrently to the sentence Epstein would receive on the already indicted state charge. Later that day, Vilafana sent Lefkowitz an email advising that she and Lori had talked with Acosta and Sloman and and they were all satisfied in principle with the agreement. The next day, September 13, 2007, Vilafana sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lori and two other supervisors identifying potential federal offenses that would yield a two year sentence. Vilafana also emailed defense counsel stating that she had been spending some quality time with Title 18, referring to the Code of Federal Criminal Statutes, to make sure there would be a factual basis for any federal plea in identifying the federal statutes she was considering. Alright, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up where we left off. And that's with C. The evidence does not clearly show why the term of incarceration was reduced from 24 months to 20 months to 18 months. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in in the description box.

[Lingokids Narrator]

The number one job of any parent is to look out for their kids.

[Child]

Sometimes mom doesn't let me use my tablet.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Well, that is part of looking out for you. Your parents want to make sure you're safe while you're having fun. I guess that's what we want too. We're Lingokids and we're here to help parents out. Lingokids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids because kids love it and parents can trust it.

[Child]

What's it got?

[Lingokids Narrator]

Lingokids has lots of fun stuff that parents can feel good about, like songs and shows, plus activities featuring beloved Disney characters from Disney's Moana, Frozen and more.

[Child]

I love Disney stories.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Who doesn't? Lingokids has over 1 million daily users, so it looks like a lot of people love it already. Plus, when your parents download the Lingokids app, they can get a one week free trial.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Lingo Kids, kids everything kids love.

[Lingokids Narrator]

Download the app for free.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Forget everything you had planned for this weekend because you are sitting on your couch and winning from the comfort of your own home. I'm here with Spin Quest where you can play hundreds of slot games, all the table games you love, and you could even win real cash prizes. New users $30 coin packs are on sale for [e-mail] SpinQuest is a free

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.