DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page/1 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 69 of 348 on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show. Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM — not you. As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney.®’ Whether or not you are correct, matters of policy are always within his purview and any decisions in that area ultimately rest with him. Finally, you may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with about this or any other case. If the U.S. Attorney or the First Assistant desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will I direct Epstein’s lawyers to communicate only with you. If you want to work major cases in the district you must understand and accept the fact that there is a chain of command — something you disregard with great regularity. Villafafia acknowledged to OPR that as Criminal Division Chief, Menchel had authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo requiring that guilty pleas be to the most serious readily provable offense. She disagreed, however, with his representation about her initial meeting with Acosta and Sloman regarding the Epstein investigation, noting that Menchel had not been at that meeting.® Villafafia told OPR that no one had communicated to her the “concerns” Menchel mentioned, and she had not been given an opportunity to respond to those concerns.” A week later, Villafafia replied to Menchel’s email, reiterating her concerns about the process and that filing charges against Epstein was not moving forward: Hi Matt -- My trial is over, so I now have [ ] time to focus back on this case and our e-mail exchange. There are several points in your SF Neither Menchel nor Villafafia could recall for OPR to what concerns they were referring. In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Acosta’s attorney noted that Acosta’s concerns were “the possibility that bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and result in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims.” as Menchel confirmed to OPR that he was not involved in the decision to initiate the federal investigation. 69 Villafafia characterized Menchel’s email as “meant to intimidate” and told OPR that she felt “put in [her] place” by him. She perceived that Menchel was making it clear that she should not “jump the chain of command.” Menchel, however, asserted to OPR that Villafafia had a “history of resisting supervisory authority” that warranted his strong response. 43 DOJ-OGR-00021243