DOJ-OGR-00000187.tif

124a to “any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including’ the four named assistants, and deleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally, Villafafia deleted mention of immigration proceedings, but advised in her transmittal email that “we have not and don’t plan to ask immigration” proceedings to be initiated.'* Later that day, Villafafa alerted Lourie (who had arrived in Florida from Washington, D.C. early that afternoon) and the new West Palm Beach manager (copying her first-line supervisor and co-counsel) that she had included language that defense counsel had requested “regarding promises not to prosecute other people,” and commented, “I don’t think it hurts us.” There is no documentation that Lourie, the West Palm Beach manager, or anyone else expressed disagreement with Villafafia’s assessment. Rather, within a few minutes, Villafafia re-sent her email, adding that defense counsel was persisting in including an immigration waiver in the agreement, to which Lourie responded, “No way. We don’t put that sort of thing in a plea agreement.” Villafafa replied to Lourie, indicating she would pass that along to defense counsel and adding, “Any other thoughts?” When Lourie gave no further response, Villafafia informed defense counsel that Lourie had rejected the proposed immigration language. OPR questioned the subjects about the USAO’s agreement not to prosecute “any potential co- 9 124 Villafafia gave OPR an explanation similar to that given by the case agents—that an ICE Special Agent had been involved in the early stages of the federal investigation of Epstein, and Villafafia believed the agent knew two of Epstein’s female assistants were foreign nationals and would have acted appropri- ately on that information. Villafaria also said that the USAO generally did not get involved in immigration issues. DOJ-OGR-00000187