DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, A399 3536038, Page231 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 229 of 348 various iterations of the victims’ rights legislation.”**° Villafafia explained to OPR her reference to the victims: [M]y concern was that [Menchel] was violating the CVRA which requires the attorneys for the government, which[] includes me[,] to confer with the victims, and the [VRRA], which requires the agents to keep the victims apprised of what’s happening with the case. So in essence, I felt like he was exposing both myself and the agents to allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these plea negotiations without letting us know about it.7°° In his reply to Villafafia’s email, and after noting that he found her email “totally inappropriate,” Menchel denied that he had violated any Departmental policy, and he noted that “Tals Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the U.S. Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with” Departmental policy. Perceiving Menchel’s rebuke as a criticism of her judgment, Villafafia responded, “[R]aising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment” and that her “first and only concern in this case. . . is the victims.” Menchel told OPR that he did not view his conversation with Sanchez as a plea offer, asserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement negotiations, and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed. Menchel told OPR that ‘“‘you have discussions . . . with [the] defense all the time, and the notion that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims . . . is not even ... in the same universe as to how I think about this.” Menchel also observed that on the very day that Villafafia criticized him for engaging in settlement negotiations without consulting her, the FBI, or the victims, Villafafia had herself sent an email to Sanchez offering “to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution of Mr. Epstein’s case that could run concurrently with any state resolution,” without having spoken to the victims about her proposal.?*’ 28 Villafafia told OPR that “some victims, I felt strongly, would have objected to [a state-only disposition].” Villafafia stated to OPR that at the time Menchel engaged in such negotiations, he would only have been aware of the victim information contained in her prosecution memorandum, which included information about the “effects on the victims” but did not likely contain information as to “how they would like the case resolved.” Villafafia asserted that Menchel “never reached out to any of the victims to find out what their position would be.” Menchel told OPR that the allegations in Villafafia’s email that he violated the Ashcroft Memo, USAM, and the CVRA were “way out of line in terms of what the law is and the policies are.” 286 As discussed, the Department’s position at the time was that the CVRA did not apply before charges were filed against a defendant. 287 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Villafafia’s counsel asserted that her email to Sanchez was intended only to determine whether Epstein was interested in opening plea negotiations. 203 DOJ-OGR-00021403