← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 32-34) (4/6/26)
00:39:51
The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty....
Loading summary
Transcript19 lines
- [00:00]
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.
- [00:24]
Narrator/Announcer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [00:30]
Mackenzie
My name is Mackenzie and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a nonverbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child, so she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help support them during this crisis and we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.
- [01:17]
Narrator/Announcer
GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform, trusted by over 200 million people.
- [01:22]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Start Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com
- [01:25]
Narrator/Announcer
that's gofundme.com gofundme.com this podcast is supported by GoFundMe. 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 NPA. 3 the NPA did not violate Department policy relating to deportation of criminal aliens. During the negotiations, the USAO rejected a defense offered provision for prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating, or in any way encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings against two female assistants. However, OPR considered whether the April 28, 1995 memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute Epstein's two female assistants, who are known to be foreign nationals, as Vilafana urged in her prosecution memorandum, and thus trigger their removal, or, conversely, whether it precluded the USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution. OPR found nothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard. The Attorney General's April 28, 1995 memorandum regarding deportation of criminal aliens directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and and directly in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States and along with USAM section 9 73, 520 provided that all deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist. However, Epstein's two assistants were not deportable unless and until convicted of a crime that would have triggered their removal. But neither the Policy Memorandum nor the USAM in imposed an obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national. Nor did either provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions. The Policy Guidance also requires prompt and close coordination with immigration officials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration authorities before before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants. OPR learned during its investigation that an ICE agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages. Moreover, because the USAO never engaged in plea negotiations with two female assistants who in any event had not been charged and were therefore not defendants, no further notification was required. Part 4 the evidence does not establish that the subjects were influenced by improper motives to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein or to otherwise extend benefits to Epstein. OPR investigated whether any of the subjects Acosta, Sloman, Menshel, Laurie, or Vilafana was influenced by corruption, bias, or any other improper motive such as Epstein's wealth, status, or political associations to include terms in the NPA that were favorable to Epstein or whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the federal investigation. OPR considered the case specific reasons the subjects identified as the motivation for the USAO's July 31, 2007 term sheet and Acosta's approval of the NPA in September 2007. OPR also thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that the subjects were motivated by improper influences and including the subject's pre existing relationships with defense counsel the subject's numerous meetings with Epstein's team of nationally known attorneys emails between the subjects, particularly Villefana and defense counsel that appeared friendly, casual, and deferential to defense counsel and inclusion in the NPA of a broad provision declining to prosecute all of Epstein's co conspirators. These factors are analyzed in the following discussions throughout this section of the report. As a threshold matter, OPR's investigation of the subject's decisions and actions in the Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery, gratuity, or legal, political, or personal consideration. In addition, OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary record, interviewed witnesses, and questioned the subject attorneys. The evidence shows three sets of issues influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the npa. The first of main concern to Acosta involved considerations of federalism and the deference to state authority. The second arose from an assessment by Acosta's senior advisors, Sloman, Menshell, and Laurie, that the case carried substantial litigation risks, including both witness issues and what some viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case. The third was Acosta's aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epstein's conduct and and for the community that proposed by the state. Although the NPA and the process for reaching it can be criticized as OPR does, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous wealth. He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige, skill, and extensive experience in federal and state criminal law and in conducting negotiations. He had the resources to finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis as well as multiple in person meetings involving several of his attorneys and USAO personnel. He assembled a defense team well versed in the USAO and the Department, with the knowledge to maneuver through the Department's various levels and offices, a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently used by those familiar with the Department's hierarchy. Access to highly skilled and prominent attorneys is not unusual in criminal cases involving corporations and their officers or certain other white collar defendants, but it is not so typical for defendants charged with sex crimes or violent offenses. Nonetheless, while recognizing that Epstein's wealth played a role in the outcome because he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys, OPR concludes that the subjects were not motivated to resolve the federal investigation to Epstein's benefit by improper factors. OPR found no evidence of criminal corruption such as bribery, gratuity, or legal, political, or personal consideration. Some public criticism of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter implied that the subject's decisions or actions may have been motivated by criminal corruption, although no specific information substantiating such implications was identified throughout its investigation, OPR was attentive to any evidence that any of the subjects was motivated by bribes, gratuities, or other legal, political, or or personal considerations and found no such indication. Witnesses, including law enforcement officials, were specifically asked whether they had any information indicating such corruption and all notwithstanding the harsh criticism by some of those same witnesses of the Epstein Matters outcome stated that they did not Specifically, the FBI case agent told OPR that she did not believe there had been any illegal influence and that if she had perceived any, she would have gone screaming to the FBI's Public Corruption Unit. The CO case agent and the FBI supervisors up through the Special Agent in charge likewise told OPR that they were unaware of any indication that a prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such as gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence, and that any such indication would immediately have been referred to criminal investigation by the FBI. Contemporaneous written records and witness and subject interviews did not reveal evidence establishing that the subjects were improperly influenced by Epstein's status, wealth or associations. Although Epstein's name is now nationally recognized, in 2006 and 2007 he was not a familiar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida. All five subjects told OPR that when they first learned of the investigation they had not heard of Epstein. Similarly, the FBI case agent told OPR that when the investigation began, the no 1 in the FBI appeared to have heard of Epstein and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially unfamiliar with Epstein. However, news reports about Epstein and his July 2006 arrest on the state indictment, which were contemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation, identified him as a wealthy Palm beach resident with influential contacts including William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey and Alan Dershowitz and and other prominent business, academic and scientists Vilafana, Laurie, Sloman and Acosta learned of his press coverage early in the investigation and thus understood that Epstein was wealthy and associated with notable public figures. The FBI case agent also told OPR that we knew who had been on his plane, we knew some of his connections and just to interject real quick, that's a straight up lie. They knew about Epstein way back in the day and that's because he was reported to them by Maria Farmer.
- [11:01]
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. Thirty dollar coin packs are on sale for ten bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.
- [11:25]
Narrator/Announcer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spin quest.com for more details. Most people would rather attend a corporate team building workshop than search for auto and home insurance.
- [11:36]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Go team.
- [11:36]
Narrator/Announcer
Feel that synergy that's why the zebra searches for you. Comparing over 100 insurance companies to find
- [11:41]
SpinQuest Advertiser
savings no one else can compare. Today@the zebra.com who's ready for the trust fall, boss?
- [11:48]
Lapsed Fan Podcast Host
What's the most dreaded question that you can get when you tell people you host a podcast called the Lapsed Fan? Ugh. It's what is it about? And why is that, do you think? Because to like pro wrestling is to lose the respect of others. 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.
- [12:47]
Narrator/Announcer
1. Contemporaneous records do not reveal evidence establishing that the NPA resulted from improper factors OPR found no evidence in the extensive contemporaneous documentary record that the terms of the NPA resulted from improper factors such as Epstein's wealth or influential connections. Epstein's legal team overtly raised Epstein's financial status in arguing for a sentence that did not include a term of imprisonment on the grounds that Epstein would be extorted in prison. But the USAO insisted that Epstein serve a term of incarceration. Defense counsel mentioned former Clinton in one pre NPA letter, but that reference was made in context of a narrative of Epstein's philanthropic activities, rather than present it as a suggestion that Epstein's association to the former President warranted leniency. And in any case, the USAO rejected the defense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the state's discretion. The defense submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epstein's connection to the former President Clinton, but the submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated and signed, and in it, counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his association with the former President. 2. The subjects asserted that they were motivated by reasonable strategic and policy considerations, not improper influences. In addition to reviewing the documentary evidence, OPR questioned the five subject attorneys, all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epstein's wealth or status in making decisions regarding the investigation, in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in negotiating the npa. Vilafana in particular was concerned from the outset of the federal investigation that Epstein might try to employ against the usao. The same pressure that she understood had been used with the State Attorney's office, and she proactively took steps to counter Epstein's possible influence with by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to Epstein's tactics. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving wealthy, high profile defendants before, including the Abramoff case. Acosta told OPR, we tried to treat this case fairly, not looking at how wealthy he is but also not saying we need to do this because he is so wealthy. Menshel expressed a similar view, telling OPR that he did not believe it's appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other. Lori told OPR that Epstein's status may have generated more front office involvement in the case, but it did not affect the outcome and Sloman emphatically disagreed with the suggestion that the USAO's handling of the case had been affected by Epstein's wealth or influential connections. Other witnesses corroborated the subject's testimony on this point, including the FBI case agents who told OPR that no one ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently because of his wealth. The CEO's chief told OPR that he did not recall anyone at the USAO expressing either qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his wealth or influence. OPR takes note of, but does not consider dispositive, the absence of any affirmative evidence that the subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of such motivations. Of more significance and as discussed more fully below, was the fact that contemporaneous records support the subject's assertions that the decision to pursue a pre charge resolution was based on various case specific legal and factual considerations. OPR also considered that the USAO's most pivotal decisions to resolve the case through an NPA requiring Epstein to serve time in jail, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to victims had been made by July 31, 2007 when the USAO presented its term sheet to the defense. This was before Acosta had ever met with defense counsel and when he had been indicated, and he plans to do so. It's also well before Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Defense Counsel Lefkowitz, which received strong public and media criticism. OPR also considered significant the fact that although the USAO made numerous concessions in the course of negotiating the final npa, the USAO did not accede to the defense request that the USAO end federal involvement altogether and return the matter to the state authorities to handle as they saw fit. And the USAO refused to eliminate its requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender despite a strong push by the defense that it do so. Alright, that's gonna do it for this one and in the next episode we're gonna pick up with part three. Subject and witness interviews and contemporaneous records identified case specific considerations relating to evidence, legal theories, litigation risk, and a trial's potential impact on the victims. 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 the non prosecution agreement. Three Subject and witness interviews and contemporaneous records identified case specific considerations relating to evidence, legal theories, litigation risk, and a trial's potential impact on victims. Acosta, Sloman, Menchel and Laurie told OPR that they did not recall the specific content of discussions about the challenges presented by a potential federal prosecution or reasons for Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the npa. But they and Vilafana identified for OPR several case specific factors unrelated to Epstein's wealth or associations that either did or likely would have been included in those discussions and that OPR concludes likely influenced Acosta's decision making. These considerations include assessment of the evidentiary risks and the potential impact of a trial on the victims. For the most part, however, these factors appear more aptly to pertain to to the decision to resolve the case through a pre charge disposition, but do not directly explain why Acosta chose to resolve the federal investigation through a guilty plea in state court. That decision appears to have stemmed from Acosta's concerns about intruding into an area he believed was traditionally handled by state law enforcement authorities. In a declaration submitted to the District Court in 2007 in connection with the CVRA litigation, Vilafana explained to the USAO's rationale for for terminating the federal investigation through the NPA. Prior to the Office making its decision to direct me to engage in negotiations with Epstein's counsel, I discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the case with members of the office management and informed them that most of the victims had expressed significant concerns about having their identities disclosed. It is my understanding from these and other discussions that these factors, that is the various strengths and weaknesses of the case and and the various competing interests of the many different victims, including the privacy concerns expressed by many, together with the office's desire to obtain a guaranteed sentence of incarceration for Epstein, the equivalent of uncontested restitution for the victims and guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein were among the factors that led to the npa. During her OPR interview, Vilafana similarly described the victim's general reluctance to go forward with a trial. When we would meet with the victims, we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved and most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all, most of them did not want to have to come to court to testify and they were very worried about their privacy rights. In his written response to opr, Lori stated that although he did not specifically recall the issues Vilafana set forth in her declaration, he believed they would have been important to the USAO. In 2007, Laurie told OPR that he generally recall concerns within the USAO about the charges and a potential trial. My vague recollection is that I and others had concerns that there was a substantial chance we would not prevail at both trial and on appeal after a conviction resulting in no jail time, no criminal record, no restitution, no sex offender status, publication at a trial of the names of certain victims that didn't want their names revealed, and the general difficulties of a trial for the families and the victims. Although his email showed that at the time he advocated for prosecution of Epstein, Lori told OPR it was also his general recollection that everybody at the USAO working on the matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long term viability of a federal prosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles as well as issues with the cooperation and and the desires of the victims. Similarly, Menschel, who had experience prosecuting sexual assault crimes, recalled understanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced additional trauma as a result of a trial, and some had made statements exonerating Epstein. Menschel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein, Epstein would have elected to go to trial. In Menshel's view, the USAO therefore had to weigh the risk of losing at trial and thereby retraumatizing the victims against the benefits gained through the negotiated result, which ensured that Epstein served time in jail, registered as a sexual offender and made restitution to his victims. Sloman also recalled witnessed challenges and concerns about the viability of the government's legal theories. He told opr, it seemed to me you you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going to be reliable. You had a tranche of witnesses who were going to be severely impeached, people who loved Jeffrey Epstein, who thought he was a svangali, who were going to say I told him I was 18 years old. You had witnesses who were scared to death of the public light being shone on them because their parents didn't even know, had very vulnerable victims. You had all of these concerns. Acosta told OPR that he recalled discussions with senior managers about the victim's general credibility and and reluctance to testify and the evidentiary strength of the case, all of which factored into the resolution. He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts was not granular and did not encompass a detailed understanding of each victim's expected testimony, but he trusted that his team had already done the diligence necessary to make recommendations about the evidentiary strength of the case. Acosta recalled discussing the facts with Sloman and Menschel and possibly Laurie, none of whom had as detailed an understanding of the facts as Villefauna. Nevertheless, OPR credits Acosta's statement that he reasonably believed, based on his conversations with others who expressed this view, that a trial would pose significant evidentiary challenges. Other witnesses corroborated the subject's testimony regarding witness challenges, including the FBI co case agent who recalled during his OPR interview that some of the victims had expressed concerns for their safety and a lot of them didn't want to take the stand and didn't want to have to relive what happened to them. The co case agent told OPR that one of the strategies for dealing with victims fear was to keep them off the stand, and he generally remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way that protected victims identities. In addition, the CEO's trial attorney, who briefly worked with Vilafana on the case after the NPA was signed, told OPR that in her meetings with some of the victims she formed the impression that they were not interested in the prosecution going forward. The CEO's trial attorney told OPR that the victims would have testified but would have required an extensive amount of victim management because they were deeply embarrassed about potentially being labeled as prostitutes.
- [24:52]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on Spinquest and there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10. All the table games you love with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.com S P I N
- [25:12]
Narrator/Announcer
Q U-T.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. The CEO's trial attorney also told OPR that there were obvious weaknesses in the case of from an evidentiary perspective, the contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of or references to various legal and factual issues or other concerns about the case. For example, in an early email to Menchel, Lori noted that two key issues raised by Vilafana proposed charges were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sex acts and the fact that some minor victims had told EPSTEIN they were 18. He later opined to Acosta and Menschel that there is some risk on some of the statutes proposed in Villefana's prosecution memorandum, as this is unchartered territory to some degree. In his July 5, 2007 email to Villefana, Menschel cited Acosta and Sloman's concerns about taking this case because of the Petit policy and a number of legal issues and Acosta's concerns about hurting Project Safe Childhood. Defense counsel raised a myriad legal and factual challenges to their letters to the usao. Defense submissions attacked the legal theories for a federal prosecution and detailed factors that could have undermined victims credibility, including victim statements favorable to Epstein and evidence of victim drug and alcohol use, as well as the fact that some victims recruited other victims and purportedly lied to Epstein about their ages. Acosta also recalled that although his team had expressed concern about the trial issues, his own focus had been on the legal side of things. Notably, during his prior tenure as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, Acosta had been involved in efforts to address sex trafficking. He told OPR that one of the background issues that the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership and which influenced his view of the Epstein case was the distinction between sex trafficking and solicitation of prostitution. Specifically, he was concerned about avoiding the creation of a potentially unfavorable federal precedent between prostitution, which was traditionally a matter of state concern, and sex trafficking, which remained a developing area of federal interest in 2007. The USAO might not have been able to surmount the evidentiary legal and policy issues presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein. Vilafana, in particular, believed she could have prevailed had she taken the case to trial and even after the NPA was negotiated, she repeatedly recommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment because she continued to have confidence in the case. Osterbahn and others also believed that the government would succeed at trial. Furthermore, the victims were not a uniform group. Some of them were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public. Others wanted Epstein prosecuted. But even among those, it's not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a trial and still others provided information favorable to Epstein. In the end, Acosta assumed responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and benefit of a trial versus those of a pre charged disposition. His determination that a pre charged disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Although the evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisor's concerns about winning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre charge disposition, they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state based resolution as opposed to a traditional federal plea agreement. OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acosta's decision that to offer a state based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. According to Acosta, in 2006 it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage teens, because solicitation was a province of state prosecutors. Acosta told OPR that he developed a preference for deferring to the state to to make it clear that the USAO was not stepping on something that is purely a local matter because we didn't want bad precedent for the sake of the larger human trafficking issue. Acosta also told OPR that it was his understanding that the PBD would not have brought the case to federal investigators if the state Attorney's office had pursued a sanction against Epstein that had included jail time and the sexual offender registration. Acosta viewed the USAO's role in the case as limited to preventing the manifest injustice that, in Acosta's view, would have resulted from the state's original plea proposal. Acosta acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the federal system, we would not have viewed the terms set out in the NPA as satisfactory result, but it was adequate to serve as a backstop to the state's prosecution, which he described as a polite way of saying or encouraging the state to do a little bit more. In sum, Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case lay in unchartered territory, there was no certainty that the USAO would prevail if it went to trial, and a potentially unfavorable outcome had to be weighed against a certain plea with registration that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender. Acosta told OPR that he discussed the case primarily with Sloman and Menshel and and both told OPR that while they did not share Acosta's federalism concerns, they recalled that Acosta had been concerned about policy and federalism issues. Sloman told OPR that although he did not remember specific conversations, he generally recalled that Acosta had been sensitive to petite policy and federalism concerns, which Sloman described as whether the USAO was overstepping our bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the state attorney's office that was resolved by the state attorney's office at some level. During his OPR interview, Menshel remembered that Acosta approached the case from a broader policy perspective and was worried about the impact that taking the case in federally may have on other programs, although Menshel did not recall specifically what those programs were alright, we're gonna wrap this one up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with c Other significant factors are inconsistent with the conclusion that the subject's actions were motivated by improper influences. 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 npa. Other significant factors are inconsistent with the conclusion that the subject's actions were motivated by improper influences. OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with the suggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July 31, 2007 terms was driven by corruption, a desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein, or other improper influences. First, OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acosta's primary motivation was to benefit Epstein, he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him. The NPA required Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender and provided a mechanism for the victims to seek monetary damages, outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned and sent back to the state for whatever results state authorities deemed appropriate. Epstein's attorneys had argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation and that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern. If the USAO had declined to intervene in the case, as Epstein's counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should, the state would have meted out the sole punishment for his behavior. Under the state's original plan, Epstein likely would have received a sentence of probation. Manschel describes such a result as a mere slap on the wrist with no jail time, no felony, no sex offense, no sexual offender registration, and no restitution for the victims. Instead of acceding to Epstein's proposal, however, the USAO devised a resolution of the federal investigation that, although widely criticized as inadequate to address the seriousness of Epstein's conduct, nevertheless penalized Epstein more than a guilty plea to the state's original charge. Standing alone would have done. Acosta's affirmative decision to intervene and to compel a more stringent and just resolution than the state had proposed, rather than exercising his discretion to quietly decline prosecution, is strong circumstantial evidence that he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein. Similarly, despite defense counsel's repeated requests and to eliminate the sexual offender registration requirement, Acosta refused to reconsider the provision. Acosta would certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely if his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein's attorneys. Second, Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA immediately after signing the agreement, he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in in the investigation inappropriate. In addition to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submission of the misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USA personnel, Epstein's dissatisfaction with the NPA and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the agreement appear inconsistent with the conclusion that the subjects designed the NPA for Epstein's benefit. OPR does not find that the subject's pre existing relationships with defense counsel, decisions to meet with defense counsel, and other factors establish that the subjects acted from improper influences or provided improper benefits to Epstein. In evaluating the subjects conduct considered various other factors featured in media accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly suggested that that the subjects acted from improper influences. OPR examined these factors but did not find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism, bias or other improper motivation. 1 the evidence does not establish that the subjects extended any improper benefit to Epstein because of their pre existing relationships with his attorneys. Epstein's wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had pre existing personal connections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case in the State Attorney's office, in the USAO and elsewhere in the Department. Based on the attorneys Epstein selected to represent him, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys with relationships to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him. One of the first attorneys who contacted the USAO on Epstein's behalf was Guy Lewis, a former AUSA and U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Vilafana and Lori had worked for Lewis, and Lori was close friends with one of Lewis law partners. Epstein also retained Lilian Sanchez, a former AUSA who had been Menchel's deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein was seeking Acosta's personal involvement in the case, Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and and Jay Lefkowitz, prominent attorneys from Kirkland Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from his previous employment with that firm. Vilafana told OPR that she believed Acosta was influenced by the stature of Epstein's attorneys. Critically, however, other than the information regarding Menshel that is discussed in the following subsection, neither Vilafana nor any of the other individual OPR interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta or any of the other subjects extended an improper favor or benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel or for any other improper reason. Vilafana explained how, in her view, the legal prowess of Epstein's attorneys had an impact on the case. One of the issues in the case was the defense ability to describe the case or characterize the case as being legally complex. It was not as legally complex as they made it out to be, but because they were able to convince members of our office that it was somehow extremely novel and legally complex, the issue became who was likely to succeed in arguing these legal issues. And because of that, the legal prowess, if you will, of the attorneys is something to consider. I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didn't know what I was talking about also came into play. So I think there were a number of factors and it all came together. Although Villefano was critical of Acosta's consideration of the defense arguments, she conceded that the defense team's tactics demonstrated effective advocacy. Certainly throughout the case, Epstein's attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing the evidence and arguing nuanced legal points concerning federalism, the elements of numerous federal criminal statutes, and the evidence relevant to those statutes. But it's not unusual or unreasonable for prosecutors to carefully consider well crafted legal arguments from the defense counsel. There is little question that Epstein's extensive team of attorneys was able to obtain negotiated benefits for Epstein. Although the USAO never wavered from its three core requirements, it did agree to a reduction in prison time from its original offer, and it granted Epstein certain other concessions during the negotiations. Epstein's wealth provided him with skilled, experienced negotiators who continually sought various incremental concessions, and with attorneys who knew how to obtain department review of a USAO matter, thereby delaying undesired outcomes for as long as possible. Despite Epstein's evident intentions, however, OPR did not find evidence warranting a conclusion that the NPA or its terms resulted from the subject's relationship with the attorneys he he had selected to represent him.
- [39:38]
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 10 at spinquest.com SpinQuest is
- [40:00]
Narrator/Announcer
a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. 2 the subjects asserted that their relationships with defense counsel did not influence their actions Acosta, Menshel, Sloman, and Lori each asserted that Epstein's choice of counsel did not affect his handling of the case. Menschel told OPR that once in private practice, former colleagues often became adversaries. In Menschel's view, such pre existing relationships were useful to because they afforded a defense attorney initial credibility and an insight into the issues a prosecutor would likely view as areas of concern, which enabled the defense attorney to tailor arguments in a way that would maximize their persuasive impact on the usao. Menschel told opr, however, that these advantages did not move the needle in any major way and he rejected the notion that anyone in the USAO had been swayed because of pre existing friendships or associations with with any of Epstein's attorneys. In fact, Menschel told OPR that he had his USAO colleagues viewed Epstein's attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as ham fisted and clumsy. Sloman told OPR that although he became aware that Laurie was friends with Guy Lewis and Lewis law partner, he was unaware of personal relationships between any of his colleagues and any of Epstein's attorneys, but that in any event his attitude regarding cases involving former colleagues and was that we would give them process but we didn't pull any punches with them. In Sloman's view, pre existing relationships with defense counsel did not change the equation because as a usas, he and his colleagues were motivated by what they perceived to be the best for the case. Lori told OPR that his pre existing associations with Epstein's attorneys didn't influence anything. Notably, at the outset of the Epstein case, Lori sought guidance from the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about the propriety of his role as a supervisor in the investigation because of his acquaintance with Lewis and longtime friendship with Lewis law partner. OPR considered Lori's caution in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility Officer's advice as an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities regarding relationships with defense counsel, including avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest. Acosta said during his OPR interview that he developed the three criteria reflected on the term sheet of sentence, incarceration, sexual offender registration, and monetary damages for the victims before he engaged directly with any of Epstein's attorneys and before Epstein added Starr and Lefkowitz, the Kirkland and Nellis attorneys to his team. Acosta pointed out that the USAO came continued to insist on a resolution that satisfied all three of those criteria. Even after Kirkland and Ellis became involved in the case, Acosta took other action that appear inconsistent with an intent to benefit Starr and Lefkowitz. On several occasions. When directly appealed to by Lefkowitzer Star, he directed them to address their communications to Vilafana, Sloman and other subordinates. After his October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, Acosta immediately communicated with Sloman about their conversation. In late 2008, when Acosta anticipated leaving the USAO and was considering pursuing employment with Kirkland and Nellis, he recognized the conflict of interest and instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter. On Acosta's behalf, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer sought and obtained formal department approval of Acosta's recusal from the case based on the fact that he had begun to discuss possible employment with Kirkland Ellis. These actions support Acosta's assertion that he was cognizant of his ethical responsibilities concerning relationships with defense counsel all right, we're gonna wrap this episode up here and in the next episode we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [44:08]
SpinQuest Advertiser
You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on SP 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.
- [44:31]
Narrator/Announcer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.