FBI
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
NYPD
|
Joint task force |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Investigation subject |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Subject of investigation |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
NSA
|
Business associate |
9
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
PBPD / PBSO
|
Inter agency cooperation |
9
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Witness's stepmom
|
Interviewee interviewer |
9
Strong
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Witness investigator |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Investigative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Witness investigator |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Michael Horowitz
|
Oversight investigated entity |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Christopher Steele
|
Source terminated |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Subject of investigation |
6
|
2 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Legal representative |
6
|
6 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Informant |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
SDNY
|
Collaboration |
6
|
6 | |
|
organization
[REDACTED]
|
Investigative subject witness |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
MIA
|
Professional bureaucratic |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
[REDACTED Interviewee]
|
Investigative subject witness |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIA
|
Inter agency cooperation |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Amanda Young
|
Employment |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Inter agency professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Informant interviewee |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Investigative informant |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office officially identified 36 women as victims. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing of the FBI case against Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Steele was terminated as an FBI source. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | An independent unit within the FBI conducted a source validation report on Steele, finding his re... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | A FISA application for surveillance on 'Page' was submitted to the FISC, relying on the Steele do... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Reiter referred the Epstein case to the FBI to investigate potential federal law violations. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The FBI initiated the 'Crossfire' counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and i... | U.S. | View |
| N/A | N/A | The FBI initiated the 'Crossfire' counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign durin... | U.S. | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI initiated a counterintelligence investigation named 'Crossfire' into the Trump campaign's pot... | USA | View |
| N/A | N/A | Following Jeffrey Epstein's indictment, Reiter referred the case to the FBI to investigate potent... | Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | N/A | Robert Lipka caught in FBI sting operation. | USA | View |
| N/A | N/A | NSA notified the FBI about the Snowden affair. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | The NSA notified the FBI about the initial investigation. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | The interviewee had a meeting with the FBI at their house. | Interviewee's house | View |
| N/A | N/A | Launch of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump-Russia collusion. | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI Director James Comey reopened the Hillary Clinton email investigation. | United States | View |
| 2025-11-28 | N/A | FOIA Request Submission | Washington, D.C. | View |
| 2025-11-17 | N/A | FBI domestic investigation questioning Snowden's co-workers. | The Center | View |
| 2025-11-01 | N/A | FBI interviews potential witnesses and victims. | Florida, New York, New Mexico | View |
| 2025-10-01 | N/A | Brad Edwards called the FBI. | N/A | View |
| 2025-08-04 | N/A | Government Review | USA | View |
| 2025-07-06 | Memorandum issuance | The DOJ and the FBI issued a memorandum regarding their review of investigative holdings on Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-06 | N/A | Issuance of Memorandum regarding Epstein investigation review | Unknown | View |
| 2025-07-06 | N/A | DOJ and FBI announced conclusion of review of Epstein's crimes and death. | USA | View |
| 2025-07-01 | N/A | FBI opens federal investigation 'Operation Leap Year'. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010012.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's recollection of the jury selection process, specifically an incident involving 'Juror No. 20' who wore an FBI turtleneck to court and whose mother worked for the FBI. The questioning also probes Brune's awareness at the time that a juror might have been a suspended attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00009964.jpg
This document is a single page from a transcript index (concordance) for the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.', dated February 15, 2012. It was filed as Exhibit A-5681 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) on March 21, 2022. The page lists keywords alphabetically from 'experienced' to 'following' (including 'FBI', 'federal', 'felony', 'financial', 'firm') alongside the page and line numbers where they appear in the original transcript. While filed in the Maxwell/Epstein docket, the content originates from the Daugerdas tax fraud case.
DOJ-OGR-00009770.jpg
This document is page 13 of a completed juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on March 24, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answered 'No' to questions regarding whether they or their family have been subjects of grand jury investigations, victims of crimes, or parties to legal disputes involving US government agencies like the FBI or NYPD.
DOJ-OGR-00009285.jpg
This document is page 63 of a court transcript index from the legal case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. It provides an alphabetical list of words (from 'experienced' to 'following') and their corresponding page and line numbers within the full transcript. The document was produced by Southern District Reporters and is part of a larger court filing from February 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00003316.jpg
This document details the conflicting communications and actions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's work release following his June 30, 2008 plea. It reveals that while federal prosecutors (USAO) and Epstein's own attorney indicated he would not get work release, a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official stated he was eligible, and he was ultimately placed in the program without the USAO's knowledge. The document also highlights Epstein's false statements to the court about his employment at the non-existent "Florida Science Foundation."
DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
This document details communications between U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, in late 2007 regarding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It focuses on a controversial breakfast meeting and subsequent letters where Lefkowitz claimed Acosta promised non-interference by federal authorities, a claim Acosta's office refuted in a draft response as "inaccurate" and tantamount to a "gag order." The text highlights conflicting accounts and the external criticism surrounding Acosta's handling of the case, contrasting his version of events with media reports.
DOJ-OGR-00003284.jpg
This document details the intense plea negotiations over the weekend of September 22-23, 2007, specifically focusing on the defense team's (Sanchez, Lefkowitz) attempts to avoid sex offender registration for Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argued there was a 'misunderstanding' at a prior meeting and that registration would preclude Epstein from serving his time in a federal camp, which was their primary goal for his safety. The document also includes a footnote indicating State Attorney Krischer faced pressure from Police Chief Reiter regarding the case.
DOJ-OGR-00003272.jpg
This legal document details prosecutor Villafaña's communications and justifications regarding a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. Villafaña explains to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) her strategic decisions, including the structuring of state and federal sentences, the rationale for not prosecuting Epstein's alleged co-conspirators, and the handling of immigration matters concerning Epstein's assistants. The text reveals internal government discussions about the controversial plea agreement and the legal reasoning behind its terms.
DOJ-OGR-00003251.jpg
This document details conflicting accounts surrounding a July 26, 2007 meeting concerning a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. While Menchel and Acosta provided vague recollections to the OPR, Villafaña claimed she was left “shocked and stunned” by the abrupt decision to offer a two-year sentence, which she described as “random” and inconsistent with sentencing guidelines. The document establishes that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer the two-year term of imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00003250.jpg
This document details the internal decision-making process of the USAO in July 2007 regarding the Epstein case, specifically Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a two-year prison term. It highlights a pivotal meeting on July 26, 2007, where supervisor Matthew Menchel ordered prosecutors and FBI agents to halt federal investigative steps because Acosta had decided to offer a 'two-year state deal' instead of federal charges. The text notes that prosecutors were actively preparing a revised indictment and seeking to investigate Epstein's assistants just days before this directive was issued.
DOJ-OGR-00003248.jpg
This document details prosecutor Villafaña's efforts during the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to obtain computer equipment removed from his Palm Beach residence. Believing the equipment contained crucial evidence like surveillance video, Villafaña made formal requests to Epstein's defense counsel, consulted with other Department of Justice sections, and communicated with defense representatives who delayed and ultimately failed to comply with the request.
DOJ-OGR-00003228.jpg
This document contains an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications regarding the initial federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights emails from prosecutor Lourie to Menchel discussing a 50-page prosecution memo, the strategy to use only 'clean victims' (those without impeachment baggage), and the assertion that the State Attorney's Office intentionally sabotaged their own grand jury case. The document also covers OPR interviews where Menchel recalls this as his introduction to the case, and then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta admits he likely did not read the prosecution memo, relying instead on his senior staff.
DOJ-OGR-00003227.jpg
This document details the internal deliberations within the USAO regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. AUSA Villafaña submitted a comprehensive 82-page prosecution memorandum on May 1, 2007, recommending a 60-count indictment for sex trafficking. Supervisor Lourie acknowledged the thoroughness of the work and supported prosecution, but suggested a strategic shift to focus on victims with the highest credibility, while noting that final approval required Miami 'front office' involvement due to the case's profile.
DOJ-OGR-00003223.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the initial federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case in July-August 2006. It highlights the distrust federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman) held toward the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein. It also details the unusual reporting structure where 'Miami' senior management took direct authority, bypassing local supervisors, and notes the FBI's collection of flight manifests and victim testimony despite intimidation tactics by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00003219.jpg
This document details a May 2006 meeting where the Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD) presented the Epstein case to federal authorities (FBI and USAO/Villafaña) due to concerns that the State Attorney (Krischer) was bowing to pressure from Epstein's legal team. The report outlines obstruction tactics used by Epstein's defense, including hiring PIs to trail police, orchestrating conflicts of interest to remove aggressive prosecutors, and potentially obtaining tips about search warrants. It also discusses the legal strategy for federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2423, citing flight logs listing anonymous 'females' as potential evidence of interstate trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00003208.jpg
This document details the professional background of AUSA Ann Marie C. Villafaña, focusing on her role as the lead prosecutor in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation starting in 2006. It clarifies that while Alexander Acosta made the decision to use a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), Villafaña was the primary negotiator with Epstein's counsel and drafted the agreement. The text also outlines the timeline of the investigation, the subsequent CVRA litigation, and the eventual finding of government misconduct in 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00003187.jpg
This page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report (filed in 2021) summarizes findings regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. The report concludes that while Alexander Acosta made the pivotal decision to defer to a state-based plea and approved the NPA, neither he nor the other subject attorneys committed professional misconduct under OPR standards, as Acosta had 'plenary authority' to resolve the case. The document also addresses the District Court's previous finding that the USAO violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by misleading victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003147.jpg
This is a page from a Government legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) responding to defense motions regarding discovery. The Government argues that witness statements (Jencks Act material) need not be disclosed immediately, and that a request for an unredacted FBI report is moot because it was already provided in November 2020. A key revelation in the footnotes is that a redacted version of an FBI report submitted by the defense was actually recovered directly from one of Jeffrey Epstein's personal devices during a search warrant execution.
DOJ-OGR-00003106.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a defendant's motion. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's false statements, made in a civil deposition, were intended to obstruct a criminal investigation by the FBI and a grand jury, and are therefore connected to the substantive offenses. The argument cites several legal precedents to support the claim that the charges should not be severed.
DOJ-OGR-00003016.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that there was no due process violation regarding the timing of an indictment. The Government contends that the delay was justified because two critical witnesses, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3, only came forward to be interviewed in August and September 2019, less than a year before the indictment was sought in June 2020. The document cites legal precedents to support the position that delays caused by witness unavailability are permissible and that prosecutors can wait until an investigation is complete before seeking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00003010.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) outlines the Government's argument that the defendant has failed to prove prejudice regarding the unavailability of Detective Recarey and various unnamed 'Epstein employees.' The text argues that fading memories and lost witnesses do not automatically justify dismissing the indictment. A footnote clarifies that Minor Victim-2 was interviewed by the FBI, but not by Detective Recarey.
DOJ-OGR-00002982.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues against a defendant's motion for discovery related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It heavily cites an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report which concluded that prosecutors, including Alex Acosta and Villafaña, did not intend the NPA's 'co-conspirator' clause to protect Epstein's influential associates. Instead, the provision was meant for four specific women, as prosecutors viewed Epstein as the primary target and were not interested in prosecuting others.
DOJ-OGR-00002970.jpg
This legal document argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is binding only on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and not on other districts, such as the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide any evidence to support the claim that the NPA binds other districts, dismissing a privilege log from an investigation into Epstein as irrelevant to this specific point. The document concludes that the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law because the text of the NPA does not support a broader application.
DOJ-OGR-00004741.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on June 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's request (Request 11) for a subpoena to obtain original photographs of an alleged victim, ruling that the Government has already agreed to provide the photos in FBI possession, and that Maxwell failed to establish the relevance of the remaining photos beyond impeachment purposes, which does not satisfy Rule 17(c) requirements. The document concludes by formally denying the Defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00004740.jpg
This page from a court order addresses two requests by the defendant, Maxwell. The court denies Request 9 regarding forensic analysis of a journal, deeming the arguments speculative and improper for a Rule 17(c) subpoena, and denies Request 10 for a pair of boots as moot because the government has already agreed to make them available for inspection.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity