Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 35-37) (4/6/26)

Summary

---

The Epstein Chronicles – Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 35-37)

Host: Bobby Capucci
Date: April 7, 2026
Episode Focus: This episode continues the exhaustive deep-dive into the U.S. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's controversial 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Host Bobby Capucci walks listeners through critical findings, focusing on possible motives, internal deliberations, and the conduct of prosecutors in relation to defense counsel and the deal's unprecedented provisions.

---

Main Theme & Purpose

The episode meticulously examines whether prosecutors and Department of Justice officials offered Epstein or his associates improper favors or leniency during the NPA negotiations, and if key meetings, communications, or personal connections influenced the outcome. The narrative addresses persistent public suspicions that Epstein's wealth and powerful connections resulted in extraordinary prosecutorial deference, while weighing evidence from the OIG/OPR investigation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The “Two-Year Deal” – Origins and Motivations

• The OIG/OPR scrutinized an allegation from 2018 suggesting the two-year sentence initially offered to Epstein resulted from a favor between prosecutor Matt Menschel and defense attorney Lily Ann Sanchez, both of whom had a prior social relationship.
• Key finding: There was no credible evidence that this offer constituted a personal favor. Instead, the decision-making process lacked clear rationale and may have stemmed from Acosta, not Menschel.
  • Quote:
    “OPR concludes that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menschel as a favor to the defense counsel.” (03:51)
• Meetings and conversations cited in emails or recalled by participants appeared inconsistent and could not substantively support impropriety.

2. Frequency and Nature of Prosecutorial Meetings with Defense

• While meeting with defense in sex crime cases is atypical, OPR determined the number and nature of meetings here did not alone suggest favoritism, given high-profile/complex cases often draw persistent defense advocacy.

  • Quote (Lori):
    “I don’t recall ever getting so many requests for meetings and...so many audiences that Epstein’s attorneys got, but this was, I think, the first time that’s really happened.” (11:04)
  • Quote (Menchel):
    “Ethically it’s appropriate to give a defense attorney an audience, and there was no real downside to doing so.” (11:45)

• Prosecutors described these meetings as opportunities to listen rather than negotiate, and aimed at understanding the defense strategy, not capitulating to it.

• Host insight: While transparency here is essential, these meetings, though unusual for this type of case, were justified by the parties involved as procedural steps or “intelligence gathering.”

3. The Infamous “Breakfast Meeting” between Acosta and Defense (Lefkowitz)

• Critically examined was the October 12, 2007, breakfast between U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta and Jay Lefkowitz, which media claimed sealed Epstein’s lenient deal.
• Evidence showed the NPA was already signed; discussions at breakfast revolved around logistical addenda, not substantive new concessions.
  • Quote:
    “OPR concludes that Acosta did not negotiate the NPA or make any significant concessions relating to it during or as a result of the October breakfast meeting.” (24:30)
• Claims by defense (Lefkowitz) that Acosta had agreed not to contact victims or intervene in state sentencing decisions were refuted by subsequent prosecutor correspondence explicitly contesting those interpretations.

4. Vilafana’s Emails and Tone During Negotiations

• Media scrutiny of AUSA Marie Vilafana’s “collegial” tone in emails painted her as complicit in a secretive deal.
  • Key Point:
    OPR found her tone reflected her professional demeanor and the reality that she had to engage in negotiations at her supervisors' directions, not personal softness towards the defense.
  • Quote (Vilafana):
    “I’m a Minnesota girl, I prefer not to be confrontational… But my instructions from my supervisors were to engage in these negotiations and complete them. So...the best way to complete them was to reach the agreement...in a way that is civil.” (46:18)
• Supervisors, including Sloman and Lori, affirmed Vilafana was the most determined to prosecute Epstein, and her emails were misunderstood outside of context.

5. The Provision Promising Not To Prosecute "Co-Conspirators"

• The episode details how the broad NPA clause not to prosecute any “potential co-conspirators” (beyond four named assistants) remained largely unexamined in contemporary DOJ records.
• Vilafana and colleagues thought at the time it would only shield four female assistants—believing no evidence existed against Epstein’s prominent associates, whose involvement only became apparent years later.
  • Quote (Acosta):
    “[T]he focus is on Epstein going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to jail or other lesser involved individuals is not the focus of this.” (52:15)
• OPR found no evidence this clause was inserted to protect powerful men in Epstein’s orbit; rather, it was poorly considered and mushroomed from a narrower proposal sought by defense.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Lori on unique access for Epstein’s team:
  “I don’t recall ever getting so many requests for meetings and, and so many appeals and so many audiences that Epstein’s attorneys got, but this was, I think, the first time that it’s really happened.” (11:04)

• Acosta on meetings with defense:
  “Notwithstanding that meeting and all the other process granted to the defense by the USAO… we successfully held firm in our positions on the key elements of the resolution.” (14:02)

• Vilafana on her negotiation style:
  “So although my language in the kind of introductory or prefatory communications with Mr. Lefkowitz was casual and friendly… when you look at the terms and when he would come back to ask for changes, my response was always, ‘No, I will not make that change.’” (46:18)

• Sloman on Vilafana’s intent:
  “Reports that Vilafana was soft on Epstein couldn't have been further from the truth… she was the one who wanted to go after him the most.” (47:10)

---

Segment Timestamps

• [01:00] OPR review of Vilafana’s “do her a solid” email and origin of two-year offer
• [07:19] Analysis of meetings between DOJ and defense
• [11:00] Prosecutor perspectives on the frequency of meetings
• [18:00] Deep dive: Defense strategy and high-level negotiations
• [23:05] The October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting: public perceptions vs. evidence
• [31:00] Evaluation of alleged “concessions” at breakfast; contemporary DOJ pushback
• [44:39] Vilafana’s emails, media portrayal, and OPR’s contextual findings
• [51:00] Examination of the non-prosecution-of-co-conspirators clause

---

Summary & Flow

The episode delivers a granular yet accessible narrative that demystifies the DOJ’s decision-making during the Epstein NPA. Through extensive OPR/OIG records, Bobby Capucci demonstrates persistent ambiguity about reasoning behind key decisions—such as the two-year plea proposal, frequent meetings with defense, and the “co-conspirator” immunity—while affirming no direct evidence was found of undue favoritism or corruption intended to protect Epstein’s powerful associates.

Capucci’s tone throughout is thorough, skeptical, but fair. He emphasizes the difference between prosecutorial misjudgment or neglect—especially in failing to foresee the future emergence of more allegations—and deliberate, targeted favor-trading. Listener attention is drawn repeatedly to the broader context in which prosecutors operated and the limits of the record, highlighting not only the procedural history, but the reputational damage still shaped by incomplete public narratives.

---

End of Summary.
All referenced episode materials can be found in the description box as mentioned by the host.

Transcript

[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 spinquest 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 Disclaimer Announcer]

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

[Podcast Host]

here at

[The Zebra Insurance Advertiser]

the Zebra Research shows the average person would rather endure a root canal than search for auto and home insurance. Just try to relax or be trapped in a car for eight hours with toddlers on a sugar high or remove a nest of irate hornets. That's why the Zebra searches for you, comparing over 100 insurance companies to find savings no one else can Compare. [e-mail] we do the searching, you do the saving. I think I'll wait inside.

[Podcast Host]

What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking right back up where we left off with the OIG report into the npa. In its review of the documentary record, OPR examined the email written by Vilafana in 2018, more than a decade after the NPA was negotiated, in which she suggested that the two year sentence requirement and in the initial term sheet provided to the defense was developed by Menshel as a favor to the defense attorney Sanchez. OPR examined the facts surrounding this allegation and determined that there was no merit to it. Specifically, in December 2018, after the Miami Herald investigative report renewed public attention to the case, Vilafana recounted in an email to a supervisory A USA a conversation she recalled having with Sloman about the case. In the email, Villefana stated that she had not been a participant in discussions that led to Acosta's decision to offer a two year plea deal. But, she added, the following months or possibly years later, I asked former first assistant Jeff Sloman where the two year figure came from. He said that Lily Ann Sanchez, attorney for Epstein, asked Mr. Menschel to do her a solid and convince Mr. Acosta to offer two years. OPR questioned both Vilafana and Sloman about the purported do her a solid remark. Vilafana told OPR that she had been aware that Menchel and Sanchez were friends during her OPR interview. Vilafana explained a lot later, I asked Jeff, I said, you know Jeff, where did this two years come from? And he said, well, I always figured that Lily asked Matt to do her a solid, which I thought was such a strange term and to get her a good deal so that she would be in Epstein's good graces. And that's where the two years came from. Although strangely enough, then several years after that, Jeff Sloman asked me where the two years came from and I had to remind him of that conversation. So Jeff doesn't know where the two years came from. Because the email had been expressed in more definitive terms, OPR asked Vilafano whether Sloman had affirmatively asserted that the two year deal was a favor from Menschel to defense counsel or whether he had stated that he merely figured that was the case. But Vilafana could not recall precisely what Sloman had said. At a follow up interview, Vilafana again said that she was unable to recall whether Sloman's specific statement was Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid and he did it or I always figured Matt just wanted to do her a solid. Vilafana stated that she was unaware of any information that expressly indicated that there was any sort of exchange of a favor in either direction. During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall making such a remark, although he could not rule out the possibility that Vilafana, for whom he repeatedly expressed great respect, heard that in some fashion. He told OPR that if he did say something to Villefana about Menshel having done a solid for Epstein's counsel, he could not have meant it seriously. And he explained, it's not something that I would have believed him doing her a solid. I mean, that's the furthest thing from my recollection or impression. Even after years later, Menchel told OPR that when he and Sanchez were in the USAO they had a social relationship which included in 2003, a handful of dates over a period of two or three weeks. We decided that this was probably best not to pursue and we mutually agreed not to do that. Apart from that, he stated they were very close and hung out and he asserted that this was known in the office at the time. Menshel said that his relationship with Sanchez changed dramatically when she left the office for private practice and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein investigation, he had dated and married his wife and his contact with Sanchez would most likely have been at office events and when she attended his wedding. That was three and a half years but prior from a very brief period of time. And I don't think I gave it a moment's thought. When asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer for a two year term of incarceration. Menschel said that he did not recall discussions about the two year offer and did not recall how the office arrived at that figure. In response to OPR's question, Menschel stated that his relationship with Sanchez did not at all affect his handling of the Epstein case. Moreover, Menschel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was Acosta, not Menschel, who made the decision to resolve the case with a two year term. OPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point as well as the statements to OPR from Menschel, Vilafana, Sloman and Acosta and concludes that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menshel and as a favor to the defense counsel. The USAO's first plea overture to defense counsel, which took place sometime before June 26, 2007, occurred when Menshel spoke with Sanchez about the possibility of resolving the federal case with a state plea that required jail time and sexual offender registration. According to the email, it was a non starter for the defense and the lengthy email exchange with vilafana in early two July 2007, Menchel told her that his discussion with Sanchez about a state based resolution was made with Acosta's full knowledge. Acosta corroborated this statement telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menshel concerning a state based resolution, he was certain Menschel would have discussed his potential resolution with defense counsel without having discussed it with me. Moreover, the defense did not immediately accept the two year proposal when it was made, but instead continued to press for a sentence of home confinement suggesting that the defense had not requested the two year term as a favor and did not view it as such. The defense had previously rejected the state's offer of a sentence of probation and there is no indication in the contemporaneous records that Epstein viewed any jail sentence favorably and certainly did not appear to be the view of the defense team in the early stages of of the negotiations. As discussed below, after extensive questioning of the subjects about the basis for the two year offer and through a review of the documentary record, OPR was unable to determine the reasoning underlying the decision to offer two years as the term of incarceration as opposed to any other term of years. Nonetheless, OPR concludes from the evidence that Acosta was aware and approved the initial offer to the defense which which included the two year term of incarceration. The only evidence suggesting that the offer of two years stemmed from an improper motivation of Menschel's was a single second hand statement in an email drafted many years later. Sloman, the purported declarant, told OPR that he could not recall whether he made that statement, but he firmly disputed that the email accurately reflected either the reason for the two year proposal or his understanding of that reason. Vilafana herself could remember little about the critical conversation with Sloman, including whether she had recorded accurately what Sloman had said. Given the lack of any corroborating evidence and the evidence showing Epstein's vigorous resistance to the proposal, OPR concludes that there is no evidence to support the statement in Vilafana's 2018 email that Menshel had extended a two year plea deal as a favor to one of Epstein's attorneys. The evidence does not establish that the subject's meetings with defense counsel were improper benefits to Epstein. OPR considered whether decisions by Acosta, Sloman, Menschel, and Laurie to meet with defense counsel while possible charges were under consideration or during the period after the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas evidenced improper favoritism toward or the provision of an improper benefit to the Epstein team. 1 the evidence shows that the subjects decisions to meet with Epstein's legal team were warranted by strategic considerations. Although pre indictment negotiations are typical in white collar criminal cases involving financial crimes, witnesses told OPR that pre charge meetings with defense counsel are infrequent in sex offense cases. As the lead prosecutor, Villefana opposed meeting with Epstein's attorneys and voiced her concern to her supervisors but was overruled by them. In Vilafana's view, the significance of the early meetings granted to the defense team that was but for those meetings the USAO would not have offered the disposition set forth in the July 31, 2007 term sheet and moreover the term sheet would never have been offered to anyone else. OPR investigation established that while the defense attorneys persistently contacted the subjects through emails, correspondence, and phone calls, relatively few in person meetings actually occurred with the USAO personnel involved in the matter. As shown in the chart on the following page, while the case was under federal investigation and before the NPA was signed, the subject, supervisors and defense counsel had five substantive meetings about the case, including one called by the USAO to offer the NPA term sheet resolution and a sixth meeting together with the state attorney and the lead state prosecutor to discuss the state plea. Acosta attended only one pre NPA meeting after the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas. The subject supervisors and the defense team had one substantive meeting, one unscheduled meeting on a procedural matter and a meeting with one defense attorney in preparation for a conference call. In addition, Acosta had had the breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz. OPR explored the subject supervisor's reasoning for accommodating the defense requests for in person meetings and whether such accommodation was unusual. OPR questioned each of the four supervisory subject attorneys about his rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with the defense. Lori could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epstein's defense counsel, but he told OPR that that his general practice was to meet with the defense counsel when asked to do so. Laurie recognized that some prosecutors, like Vilafana, viewed meeting with the defense as a sign of weakness. But in Lori's view, information is power, and as long as the USAO did not share information with the defense, but rather listened to their arguments, meetings were all power to us. Laurie explained that by meeting with the defense, you're getting the information that they think is important, that they're going to focus on the witnesses that they think are liars, and you can form all of that into your strategy. Lori told OPR that giving defense counsel the opportunity to argue the defense position is an important part of the process that helped ensure procedural fairness, allowing them to believe that they are getting heard. When asked whether he afforded the same access to all defendants, Lori responded, I don't recall ever getting so many requests for meetings and, and so many appeals and so many audiences that Epstein's attorneys got, but this was, I think, the first time that it's really happened. Menshel, too, told OPR that in his general view was that ethically it's appropriate to give a defense attorney an audience, and there was no real downside to doing so. What happens a lot of times is the government will carve around those points that are being raised by the defense, and it's good to know what the defense will be. During his OPR interview, Acosta rejected the notion that his meeting with defense counsel was unusual or outside the norm. He told the OPR that his initial meeting with the defense team before the NPA was signed was not the first time and only time that I granted a meeting to defense attorneys who requested one.

[SpinQuest Promoter]

What's up, baby? It's Bretzky, and I'm here to tell you that spinquest.com is giving out free Sweeps coins. All you gotta do is purchase a $10 coin pack, and guess what? They're gonna give you the coins from a $30 coin pack that lets you play all your favorite games like blackjack, wanted, dead or Wild. And we're talking real cash prizes, baby.

[SpinQuest Disclaimer Announcer]

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

[The Zebra Insurance Advertiser]

Most people would rather attend a corporate team building workshop than search for auto and home insurance.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Go team.

[The Zebra Insurance Advertiser]

Feel that synergy. That's why the zebra searches for you comparing over 100 ins to find savings no one else can compare today@the zebra.com

[Podcast Host]

who's ready for the trust fall?

[The Zebra Insurance Advertiser]

Most people would rather remove a nest of irate hornets than search for auto and home insurance. That's why the zebra searches for you. Comparing over 100 insurance companies to find savings no one else can compare today@the zebra.com I think I'll wait inside Acosta

[Podcast Host]

did not believe it was atypical for a U.S. attorney to meet with the opposing counsel, particularly as a case was coming to resolution. Sloman corroborated Acosta on this point, telling OPR that Acosta typically met with defense attorneys and that the USAO handled requests for meetings from Epstein's counsel in the normal course. Furthermore, Acosta said that notwithstanding that meeting and all the other processes granted to the defense by the USAO and the Department, we successfully held firm in our positions on on the key elements of the resolution and that is the requirement that Epstein be incarcerated, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to the victims. OPR examined the circumstances surrounding each subject's decisions to have the individual meetings with the defense counsel to determine if those meetings had a neutral strategic purpose. The first meeting, on February 1, 2007, followed a phone call between Lori and and one of Epstein's attorneys in which the attorney asked for a chance to make a pitch about the victim's lack of credibility and suggested that Epstein might agree to an interview. Following the pitch. The lafana objected to the meeting with the defense, but she recalled that Lori told her that she was not being a strategic thinker and that he believed the meeting could lead to a debriefing of Epstein. The meeting did not result in a debriefing of Epstein, but in advance of the follow up meeting in February 20, 2007, defense counsel gave the USAO audio recordings of the state's witness interviews. Contemporaneous documents indicate that Lori was unpersuaded by the defense arguments. After Villefana circulated the prosecution memorandum, Lori suggested preparing a short charging document with only clean victims that they had not dirtied up already. The fact that Lori apparently used information gleaned from the defense of about the victim's credibility to formulate his charging recommendation supported his statements to OPR that such meetings were, in his experience, a useful source of information that could be factored into the government's charging strategy. Alright folks, we're gonna wrap this one up right 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. 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. The two February 2007 villafauna lorry level meetings focused on witness issues and claims of misconduct by state investigators. But in late May 2007, defense attorneys requested another meeting, this time with higher level supervisors Menshell and Sloman to make a presentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution. The request was granted after Lori recommended to Menshell and Sloman that it would probably be helpful for us to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something. The requested meeting took place on June 26, 2007. Before the meeting, at Menschel's direction, Vilafana provided the defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for the federal charges. Defense counsel used that information to prepare a a 19 page letter submitted to the USAO the day before the June 26 meeting as an overview of the defense position. In an email to his colleagues, Lori evaluated the defense submission, noting its weaker and stronger arguments. A contemporaneous email indicates that Menshel, Lori and Vilafana viewed the meeting itself as primarily a listening session. After the meeting, Epstein's team submitted a second lengthy letter to to the USAO detailing Epstein's federalism arguments that the USAO should let the state handle the matter. Menshel apparently scheduled the next meeting with the defense counsel on July 31, 2007 to facilitate the USAO's presentation to the defense team of the term sheet describing the proposed terms of a non prosecution agreement. By early August, after Kirkland and Ellis, attorney Starr and Lefkowitz joined the defense team, Acosta believed they would likely go to D.C. on the case on the grounds that I have not met with them. A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for September 7, 2007, when Acosta, Sloman, Vilafana and Osterbahn met with Star, Lefkowitz and Sanchez. In an email to Sloman, Acosta explained that he intended to meet with the defense, with Osterbahn participating to discuss general legal policy only. In another email to Sloman and Laurie, Acosta explained, this will end up in the department anyhow if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Bringing the CEO's chief invisibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit to do that, it's worth it. Acosta told OPR that the meeting was not a negotiation but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments. Acosta said that he had already decided how he wanted to resolve the case, and the September meeting did not alter or shift that position. The meeting of USAO representatives and Epstein's defense attorneys, together with the state attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September 12, 2007, was a necessary part of the NPA negotiation process. Even after the NPA was signed, the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of the case, both within the USAO and by the Department's Criminal Division and and the Deputy Attorney General. Although limited reviews were granted during this period, there was only one substantive meeting with Acosta on December 14, 2007. This meeting occurred in lieu of the meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most likely because the defense submissions to the department's Criminal division had raised issues not previously raised with the usao, and the Department determined that Acosta should address those. In his first instance, Acosta told OPR that he did not ask the department review, but he also did not want to appear as if he feared that review. Acosta's nuanced position, however, was not clear to the department attorneys who responded to Epstein's appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor of a department review rather than merely tolerant of it. Notably, though, none of those meetings or reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the npa, and Epstein gained no substantial advantage from his continued attempts. In sum, in evaluating the subject's conduct, OPR considered the number of meetings, their purpose, the content of the discussions, and decisions made afterwards. OPR cannot say that the number of meetings, particularly those occurring before the NPA was signed, was so far outside the norm for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys that the quantity of the meetings alone shows the subjects were motivated by by improper favoritism. In evaluating the subject's conduct, OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels of the USAO's managers and that the explanations for the decisions to participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic goals, although OPR cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta, Menshell, Lori, and Sloman knew of the defense attorneys, they may have been willing to meet with them in. It is also true that prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys, including those who are known to them and those who are not. Furthermore, meetings are more likely to occur in high profile cases involving defendants with the financial resources to hire skilled defense counsel who request meetings at the highest levels of the USAO and the department. Most significantly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial benefit to the defense. At each meeting, defense counsel strongly pressed the USAO on factual, legal, and policy grounds to forego its federal investigation and return the matter to State to proceed as it saw fit. The USAO never yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lori, or Vilafana met with the defense counsel for the purpose of benefiting Epstein or that the meetings themselves caused Acosta or the other subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein. 2 the evidence does not establish that Acosta negotiated a deal favorable to Epstein over breakfast with defense counsel. OPR separately considered the circumstances of one specific meeting that had been the subject of media attention and public criticism. The Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting on the Epstein investigation opened with an account of the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting that defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz arranged to have with Acosta at the West Palm Beach Marriott Hotel. According to the Miami Herald article, a deal was struck at the meeting to allow Epstein to serve just 13 months in the county jail in exchange for the shuttering of the federal investigation, and Acosta also agreed to conceal the full extent of Epstein's crimes from the victims and the public. Although public criticism of the meeting has focused on the fact that the meeting occurred in a hotel far from Acosta's Miami office, the evidence shows that Acosta traveled to West Palm beach on October 11 for a press event and stayed overnight at the hotel near the USAO's West Palm beach office because at midday on October 12th he was to speak at at the Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference. After carefully considering the evidence surrounding the breakfast meeting, including contemporaneous email communications and witness accounts, OPR concludes that Acosta did not negotiate the NPA or make any significant concessions relating to it during or as a result of the October breakfast meeting, Epstein had his attorney signed the NPA on September 24, 2007, more than two weeks before the October 12 breakfast meeting. The signed NPA contained all of the key provisions resulting from the preceding weeks of negotiations between the parties and despite a later addendum and ongoing disputes about interpreting the damages provision of the agreement. Those key provisions remained in place thereafter. Acosta told OPR that throughout the negotiations with the defense, he sought three 1 Epstein's guilty plea in state court to an offence requiring registration as a sexual offender 2 a sentence of imprisonment and a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages from Epstein. As noted previously, the USAO's original plea offer in Menschel's August 3, 2007 letter expressed a non negotiable demand that Epstein agree to two year term of imprisonment and the final NPA required only an 18 month sentence. But the decision to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 to 18 months was made well before Acosta's breakfast meeting with counsel. The NPA signed on September 24, 2007 required 18 months incarceration, sexual offender registration, and a mechanism for the victims to obtain monetary damages from Epstein, and OPR found that these terms were not abandoned or materially altered after the breakfast meeting. At the time of Acosta's October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, two issues involving the NPA were in dispute. Neither of those issues was ultimately resolved in a way that materially changed the key provisions of the npa. First, at Sloman's instigation, the USAO sought to change the mechanism for appointing an attorney representative for the victims. The USAO initiated request to prompting discussions about an addendum to the npa. Sloman sent the text of a proposed NPA addendum to Lefkowitz on October 11, 2007. Although OPR found no decisive proof that this led to the breakfast meeting, email exchanges between Lefkowitz and Acosta show that it was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting. Shortly after the breakfast meeting, Sloman in Miami sent an email to Lefkowitz copying Acosta and Vilafana, noting that he had just got off the phone with Alex, and offering a slightly revised portion of the addendum relating to the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative. Sloman later clarified for Vilafana that Jay's suggested revision had been rejected. A second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense claim that Epstein's obligation under the NPA to pay the attorney's representative fees did not obligate him to pay the fees and and costs of contested litigation filed against them, although this was at odds with the USAO's interpretation of the provision. The USAO and the defense counsel reached agreement and clarified the provision in the NPA's addendum that was finalized several weeks after the October breakfast meeting. Although the revised provision was to Epstein's advantage. The revision concerned attorneys fees and did not materially impede the victim's ability to seek damages from Epstein under section 2255. The fact that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that Acosta did not make promises at the meeting that resolved the issue. OPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion between Acosta and Lefkowitz. In a letter sent to Acosta on October 23, 2007, two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three significant concessions during the meeting. Specifically, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta had agreed one not to intervene with the state Attorney's office handling of the case, two not to contact any of the victim witnesses or their counsel and three not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received. Acosta told OPR that he did not remember that breakfast meeting and did not recall making the commitments defense counsel attributed to him. Acosta also told OPR that Lefkowitz was not a reliable narrator of events and on several occasions in written communications had inaccurately and misleadingly characterized conversations with Acosta. Of more significance for OPR's evaluation was a contemporaneous document, an October 25, 2007 draft response to Lefkowitz letter which Sloman drafted and Acosta reviewed and edited for signature by Sloman that disputed Lefkowitz claims. The draft letter stated, I specifically want to clarify one of the items I believe was inaccurate. And in that October 23rd letter, your letter claimed that this office would not intervene with the State Attorney's office regarding this matter or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants, and their respective counsels in this matter. And neither your office nor the FBI would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as the sentence does not violate state law. As we discussed and hopefully clarified, and as the United States Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call, such promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our office cannot and will not agree to this. It is the intent of this office to treat this matter like any other case.

[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

[Podcast Host]

Q U-E-T.com Spinquest is a free to

[SpinQuest Disclaimer Announcer]

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

[The Zebra Insurance Advertiser]

Most people would rather attend a corporate team building workshop than search for auto and home insurance.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Go team.

[The Zebra Insurance Advertiser]

Feel that synergy. That's why the zebra searches for you. Comparing over 100 insurance companies to find savings no one else can compare. Today@the zebra.com who's ready for the trust fall Boss?

[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.

[Podcast Host]

Acosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR cannot find evidence that the letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly after the breakfast meeting, disagreed with Lefkowitz description of their discussions and had discussed those disagreements with Sloman. Nevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in the Oct. 23 letter to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during the breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting that he did not intend to interfere with the state's handling of the case. Contemporaneous documents show that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the view that he did not want to dictate actions of the state attorney or the state court. For example, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta asked Villefana to soften certain language that appeared to require the state attorney's office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his guilty plea or report to begin serving the sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the state's proceedings, such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the subject rather than any new concession. Lefkowitz also claimed in his October 23, 2007 letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel for the reasons discussed more fully in Chapter 3. OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NPA did not stem from the breakfast meeting but rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision, Acosta, Sloman, and Vilafana. Finally, Lefkowitz's October 23rd letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene regarding the sentence and Epstein received from the state court, and it asserted that Epstein was entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including, but not limited to gain time and work release. Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel, however, show clearly that Acosta did not abandon the NPA's explicit sentencing provision. The NPA required Epstein to make a joint recommendation with the state Attorney's office for an 18 month jail sentence, although the parties understood that he would receive the same gain time benefits available to all state inmates. After the October breakfast meeting, Sloman and Vilafana, on behalf of the usao, repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement, and the USAO also subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release. For example, in a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that Epstein intends to abide by his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that the court impose a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail. Shortly before Epstein entered his plea In June of 2008, Vilafana wrote to the state attorney to remind him that the NPA required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required a an 18 month sentence of incarceration and the USAO would consider a plea that differed from that requirement a breach of the NPA and would proceed accordingly. The guilty plea Epstein entered in a State Court in June 2008 was consistent with the dictates of the NPA and pursuant to that plea the court imposed a sentence of 18 months incarceration. Epstein, however, applied for and was accepted to the work release program and was able to serve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail. The NPA did not reference work release nor authorize Epstein to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm Beach County Stockade. Moreover, Villefana received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve his entire sentence of confinement in custody. Responsibility for that decision to afford Epstein work release privileges during his incarceration rested with state officials who had the sole authority for administering the work release program. After considering the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz found nothing in the record to suggest that the meeting resulted in a material change to the npa, affected the sentence of Epstein served pursuant to the npa, or contributed to a state official's decision to to permit him to participate in work release alright, we're going to wrap this episode up here and then the next episode dealing with the topic. We'll 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. We're going to pick up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement F Vilafana's emails with defense attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA negotiations do not establish that Vilafana or other subjects intended to give Epstein preferential treatment or were motivated by favoritism or other improper influences. During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners obtained from Epstein's attorney and filed under seal a redacted series of email exchanges between Epstein, attorney Lefkowitz and Villefana and others with Acosta and sloman during the 2007 September meeting when the NPA was being finalized and thereafter. These emails had been redacted to delete most of Lefkowitz side of the communications and consequently they did not reflect the full context of Villefana's communications to Lefkowitz. The redacted emails were later unsealed and made public over Epstein's objections. Media coverage pointed to the content and tone of Vilafana's emails as proof that Vilafana and the USAO worked in concert with Epstein's attorneys to keep the sweetheart deal a secret from the victims and the public statements in several emails in particular were cited as evidence of the USAO's improper favoritism toward Epstein. In one example, Villefana told Lefkowitz that she was willing to include in the NPA a provision of agreeing not to prosecute others, but would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge. She also offered to meet with them off campus to finalize negotiations. She also proposed on an avoid the press note, that filing federal charges against Epstein in Miami rather than West Palm beach instead of Miami would substantially reduce press coverage. OPR asked Vilafana about these emails and about the tenor of her interactions with Lefkowitz during the NPA negotiations and with other defense attorneys generally. Vilafana acknowledged that her tone was collegial and collaborative and explained that generally the tone of these emails reflected her personality and her commitment to complete the task her supervisors had assigned her. If you were to pull all my emails on every case, you, you would find that that's how I communicate with people. I'm a Minnesota girl. I prefer not to be confrontational until I have to be, and I can be when I need to be. But my instructions from my supervisors were to engage in these negotiations and to complete them. So I felt that given that task, the best way to complete them was to reach the agreement and keeping in mind the terms that our office had agreed to and do that in a way that is civil. So although my language in the kind of introductory or prefatory communications with Mr. Lefkowitz was casual and friendly, when you look at the terms and when you look and he would come back to ask for changes, my response was always, no, I will not make that change. Vilafana denied any intention to keep the victims uninformed about the NPA or to provide an improper benefit for Epstein, and she explained the context of the emails in question. The email, in which Vilafana expressed reluctance to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge was written in response to a defense proposal to include in the federal plea agreement. The parties were then considering a promise by the government not to prosecute Epstein's assistants and other employees. Lefkowitz had proposed that the plea agreement state Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of of the agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against forenamed female assistants or any employees of a specific Epstein owned corporate entity for any criminal charges that arise out of the ongoing federal investigation. Vilafana told OPR that the USAO was not intending to charge Epstein's assistance and was not aware of anyone else who could be charged and thus did not oppose the request not to prosecute third parties. However, Villefano was concerned that an overly detailed federal plea agreement would prompt the court to require the government to provide further information about the uncharged conduct, which might lead Epstein to claim the government breached the agreement by providing information to the court not directly connected to the charges to which he was pleading guilty. Vilafano was not the only one to express concern about how deeply a federal court might probe the facts and whether such probing would interfere with the viability of a plea agreement. In an earlier email, Lurie had suggested charging Epstein by complaint to allow the USAO more flexibility in plea negotiations and avoid the problem that a court might not accept a plea to a conspiracy charge and required dismissal of numerous substantive counts. As to Villefana's offer to meet with Lefkowitz off campus to resolve outstanding issues in the NPA negotiation, she explained to OPR that she believed a face to face meeting at a neutral location with all the necessary decision makers present or on call might facilitate completion of the negotiations, which had dragged on for some time. With regard to her comment about avoiding the press, Vilafana told OPR that her goal was to protect the anonymity of the victims. She said that the case was far more likely to be covered by the Palm Beach Press, which had already written articles about Epstein, than in Miami and if the victims wanted to attend the plea hearing, I wanted them to be able to go into the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper. In evaluating the emails, OPR reviewed all the email exchanges between Villefana and as well as Sloman and Acosta and Lefkowitz and other defense counsel, including the portions redacted from the publicly released emails except for a few to or from Acosta, copies of which OPR did not locate in the USAO records. OPR also considered the emails in the broader context of Vilafana's overall conduct during the federal investigation of Epstein. The documentary record as well as witness in subjective interviews establishes that Villefana consistently advocated in favor of prosecuting Epstein and worked for months towards that goal. She repeatedly pressed her supervisors for permission to indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope of the case. She opposed meetings with defense team and nearly withdrew from the case because her supervisors agreed to those meetings. Vilafana objected to the decision to resolve the case through a guilty plea in state court, and she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with Menshel about the subject when she was assigned the task of creating an agreement to effect that resolution. Vilafana fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the USAO's position despite defense counsel's aggressive tactics, OPR also considered statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense counsel. Sloman in particular told OPR that reports that Vilafana was soft on Epstein couldn't have been further from the truth. Sloman added that Vilafana did her best to implement the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable. Lori similarly told OPR that he read the district court's February 2019 opinion in the CVRA litigation and the emails from Vilafana cited in that opinion. He was surprised to see how nice she was to them and she winds up taking it on the chin for being so nice to them when I know the whole time she was the one who wanted to go after him the most. The AUSA who assisted Vilafana on the investigation told opr, everything that Vilafana did was, as far as I could tell, completely pro prosecution. Because the emails in question were publicly disclosed without context and without other information showing Vilafana's consistent efforts to prosecute Epstein and assist victims, a public narrative developed that Villafana colluded with defense counsel to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on Spin Quest 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 points Prizes. That's at spinquest.com s p I-n q

[Podcast Host]

u-e s t.com Spinquest is a free

[SpinQuest Disclaimer Announcer]

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

[Podcast Host]

After thoroughly reviewing all of the available evidence, OPR finds that narrative to be inaccurate. The USAO and Vilafana interactions with the victims can be criticized, as OPR does in several respects in this report, but the evidence is clear that any missteps Vilafana may have made in her interactions with victims or their attorneys were not made for the purpose of silencing victims. Rather, the evidence shows that Villefana in particular cared deeply about Epstein's victims. Before the NPA was signed, she raised to her supervisors the issue of consulting with victims, and after the NPA was signed, she drafted letters to notify victims of identified in the federal investigation of the pending state plea proceeding and inviting them to appear. The draft letters led defense counsel to argue to department management that Vilafana and Sloman committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a highly improper and unusual victim notification letter to all of the listed victims. Given the full context of Vilafana's conduct throughout her tenure on the case. OPR concludes that her explanations for the emails are entitled to significant weight and OPR credits them. OPR finds, therefore, that the emails in question do not themselves establish that Vilafana or any other subject acted to improperly benefit Epstein, was motivated by favoritism or any other improper influences, or sought to silence victims. The evidence does not establish that Acosta, Lori or Vilafana agreed to the NPA's provision promising not to prosecute potential co conspirators in order to protect any of Epstein's political celebrity or other influential associates. OPR examined the decision by the subjects who negotiated the NPA Vilafana, Lori, and DaCosta to include in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed not to prosecute any potential co conspirators of Epstein in addition to four named individuals to determine whether that provision resulted from the subject's improper favoritism toward Epstein or an improper effort to shield from prosecution any of Epstein's known associates. Other than various drafts of the NPA and the federal plea agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it or even gave it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and other federal plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not to prosecute any potential co conspirators of Epstein evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense. The provision expanded as Villefauna and defense counsel exchanged drafts of first a proposed federal plea agreement and then of the npa, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the provision. As the MPA drafting process concluded, Vilafana circulated to Lori and another supervisor a draft that contained the non prosecution provision, telling Lori it was some of the defense counsel's requested language regarding promises not to prosecute other people and commenting only I don't think it hurts us. In a reply email, Lori responded to Vilafana and he had raised defense counsel's attempt to insert an immigration waiver into the agreement. But Lori did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute co conspirators or ask Villefana to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the government's interests. In a subsequent email about the draft NPA Vilafana asked Laurie for any other thoughts, but there is no indication that he provided further input. OPR found no doubt document that suggested Vilafana and Lori discuss the provision further or that the other individuals who were copied on Vilafana's email referencing the provision, her immediate supervisor, the supervisor designated to succeed Lori as manager of the West Palm beach office, and Vilafana's co counsel commented on or had substantive discussions about it. Vilafana told OPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to to her observation that non prosecution provision doesn't hurt us, Vilafana assumed that they agreed with her assessment. Vilafana told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision agreeing not to prosecute any potential co conspirators, but she remembered generally that the defense counsel told her Epstein wanted to make sure that he is the only one who takes the blame for what happened. Vilafana told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein's conduct was his own dirty little secret. Vilafana said the press coverage at the time of Epstein's 2006 arrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts participated in Epstein's illicit activity and that none of the victims interviewed by the case agents before the NPA was signed told the investigators about sexual activity with any of Epstein's well known contacts about whom allegations arose many years later. Vilafana acknowledged that investigators were aware of of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well known socialite, but according to Vilafana in 2007 they didn't have any specific evidence against her. Accordingly, Villefana believed that the only co conspirators of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name. Vilafana also told OPR that the focus of the USAO's investigation was Epstein and the office was not inclined to prosecute his four assistance if he entered a plea. Because Vilafana was unaware of anyone else who could or would be charged, she perceived no reason to object to a provision promising not to prosecute other unspecified CO conspirators. Villefana told OPR that given her understanding of the facts at the time, it did not occur to her that the reference to other potential co conspirators might be used to protect any of Epstein's influential associates. Laurie, who was transitioning to his detail at the Department Criminal Division at the time Vilafana forwarded to him the draft NPA containing the non prosecution provision told OPR that he did not know how the provision developed and did not recall any discussions about it. Lori described the promise not to prosecute potential co conspirators as unusual and told OPR that he did not know why it was included in the agreement but added that it would be unlike me if I had read the language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful. Lorre posited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein theoretically could have been charged as co conspirators. He told OPR that when he saw the provision, he may have understood the reference to unnamed co conspirators as a message to any victim that had recruited other victims of that there was no intent to charge them. Acosta did not recall any discussions about the non prosecution provision, but he told OPR that Epstein was always the focus of the federal investigation and he would have viewed the federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face meaningful consequences for his actions. Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft npa. To the extent I reviewed this co conspirator provision, I can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus is on Epstein going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to jail or other lesser involved individuals is not the focus of this. Acosta also told OPR that he assumed Villefana and Lori had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate. Finally, Sloman, who was not involved in negotiating the npa, told OPR that in retrospect he understood the non prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein for assistance and and it never dawned on him that it was intended to shield anyone else. This broad provision promising not to prosecute any potential co conspirator is troubling and as discussed more fully later in this report, OPR did not find evidence showing that the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was warranted to give that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete information regarding possible co conspirators. Villefana precipitously revised a more narrow provision sought by the defense. Given its evolution from a provision sought by the defense, it appears unlikely to have been designed to protect the victims and there is no indication that at any time the subjects believed that was the purpose. However, the USAO had not indicated interest in prosecuting anyone other than the four named female assistants, and OPR found no record indicating that that Epstein expressed concern about the prospective fate of anyone other than the four assistants and unnamed employees of specific Epstein company. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that Alex Acosta, Lori or Vilafana agreed to the non prosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political celebrity or other influential associates. Alright, we're going to wrap up right there. And in the next episode, dealing with the topic we're going to pick up with Part H. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Forget whatever plans you have this weekend, because you're staying at home and playing on Spin Quests, 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 Spin Cool. Com S P I N Q U

[SpinQuest Disclaimer Announcer]

E S T Com spinquest is a free to play social casino. Voidware prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.