DOJ-OGR-00005549.jpg

Events Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382-7 Filed 10/29/21 Page4of7 AK’s recollection is that the attorneys did not make any suggestions regarding what investigative steps SDNY should take. The attorneys did not suggest that SDNY use civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation. Discussion of Epstein’s conduct expanded beyond Virginia Roberts. Attorneys described the conduct as involving many or several other girls. There was more detail provided about Virginia Roberts’s experience, but there was a broader discussion about Epstein’s conduct as a pattern and long-running, if not ongoing, behavior that continued after Virginia was no longer involved. AK’s understanding was not that the attorneys were hoping SDNY would investigate or charge anyone other than Epstein. The meeting was focused on Epstein. There was mention of other people who had helped him over time, including an individual who was in Europe and potentially was a source of evidence against Epstein. The thrust of the discussion was about building a case against Epstein. The other individuals were mentioned or described as part of telling the story, or as potential sources of information. AK does not remember exactly what she said at the end of the meeting, but she knows her practice was that in every such meeting she has ever had, she has thanked the people for coming in and been completely non-committal and non-responsive about what the office would do about the information that was provided. o AK absolutely did not tell the attorneys that an investigation would be opened. after February 29, 2016 meeting: After the February 29, 2016 meeting, AK emailed Dan Stein (Chief of Criminal Division at the time). Had a meeting in his office. AK discussed with Stein what the lawyers had shared, AK’s thoughts, and Stein’s thoughts. Decided on an action plan. o AK knew there was the pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation, which gave AK some pause because she had other occasions where civil litigants have decided to report something to the USAO because they think it will help them in their civil case. AK mentioned that to Stein. o Discussed the length of time that had passed; wasn’t clear there was any ongoing conduct; USAO SDFL is a reputable USAO with skilled FBI agents, and AK’s assumption was that however they concluded their case probably reflected something about the strength of the case or some issue that existed. o One thing that leaned in favor of taking action was that one of the lawyers (Stan or Brad) said that FBI agents in Florida case were not happy with the result and how the case was resolved. That concerned AK because experienced FBI agents in this area usually, in AK’s experience, make collaborative decisions with the USAO. o AK & Stein decided (don’t recall who came up with idea) that AK would reach out to Sean Watson (head of FBI C-20 at the time) and ask him to contact Miami FBI agents to ask if they in fact were unhappy with the outcome and felt like justice had not been served. After the meeting with Stein, AK called Sean Watson and relayed the summary of this and asked him to reach out to the Miami agents who were on the Epstein case. AK asked 3 SDNY_GM_02742889 DOJ-OGR-00005549