DOJ-OGR-00000170.tif

107a they reviewed at the time.* However, OPR’s evaluation of the subjects’ conduct was aided significantly by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prose- cutors and communications between the government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them. Ill. OVERVIEW OF OPR’S ANALYTICAL FRAME- WORK OPR’s primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation’s principal law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to a [69] to the assault charge” and suggesting a different factual scenario to support a federal charge.'” At this 8’ OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR’s request for a written response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in preparation for their interviews. "2 Villafafia told OPR that she sometimes used her home email account because “[nlegotiations were occurring at nights, on DOJ-OGR-00000170