DOJ-OGR-00021259.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page87 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 85 of 348 to OPR that she “wanted to know whether this letter went out. Because .. . if the letter didn’t go out we can make this all go away and restart.” Menchel confirmed to her that he had sent the letter out by email. Later that day, the West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor told Sloman that he understood Epstein had rejected the USAO’s proposal, and he asked when Epstein would be charged. Villafafia told OPR that the squad supervisor “yelled at” Sloman about the USAO’s decision not to prosecute Epstein federally. Sloman similarly told OPR that the squad supervisor “like [Villafafia] . . . [a]nd the agents felt very strongly about the case.”?? C. August — September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet with Acosta 1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein’s New Attorneys Villafafia told OPR that Epstein’s team was “incensed” that Acosta would not meet with them and that the USAO had set such a short deadline to respond to its offer. Around this time, Epstein added to his team Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, two prominent attorneys from the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, whom Acosta knew from his employment a decade earlier as an associate at the firm.°* On the evening of August 6, 2007, Sloman emailed Acosta: “Just saw Menchel. I didn’t know Kirkland made a call into you. You were right. Unbelievable.” During their OPR interviews, neither Acosta nor Sloman remembered the call from Kirkland & Ellis and could provide no additional information about the contact.”> A reply email from Acosta to Sloman indicates that the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys were considering elevating to the Department their objections to the USAO’s involvement in the Epstein matter. In that email, Acosta stated, “They are likely to go to DC. We should strategize a bit. We are not changing positions, and that should be made clear.” The next day, Acosta wrote to Sloman: [Epstein’s] attorneys want to go to DC on the case, on the grounds of a process foul, i.e., that I have not met with them. I’m concerned that this will delay matters. I am thinking of heading this off, by (1) agreeing to meet to discuss general legal policy only (the only matter in which DC has arguable % In an email to Lourie reporting the conversation, Sloman reported that he told the squad supervisor that “it’s a tad more complicated” and commented, “The guy is killing me.” The squad supervisor told OPR that he did not remember this exchange with Sloman, but he recalled the agents being “upset” with the proposed resolution of the case and he likely would have told Sloman, “When do we indict? Why don’t we just move forward?” a4 Acosta told OPR that as a junior associate with Kirkland & Ellis from September 1995 to March 1997, he had worked on at least one matter each with Starr and Lefkowitz, and since that time, he had professional acquaintanceships with both. 93 Menchel told OPR that he did not remember the timing of the call, but he did remember an occasion on which he entered Acosta’s office as Acosta was finishing a phone conversation, and Acosta stated, “[T]hat was Ken Starr,” and told Menchel the call related to the Epstein case. 59 DOJ-OGR-00021259