Alexander Acosta
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
20
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Prosecutor defendant |
14
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Jay Lefkowitz
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Prosecutor subject |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Sloman
|
Professional subordinate |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Political appointee |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
President Trump
|
Political nominee nominator |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Kenneth Starr
|
Professional adversarial |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Marie Villafaña
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Matthew Menchel
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Political appointment |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey H. Sloman
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Cabinet member |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ken Starr
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeff Sloman
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Sloman
|
Professional subordinate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lawmakers (Sasse, Rubio, Murray, etc.)
|
Investigatory |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Subject of prosecution prosecutor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Political professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Kenneth W. Starr
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Professional supervisory |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
A. Marie Villafaña
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Sloman
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Donald Trump
|
Professional political |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Barry Krischer
|
Professional federal vs state prosecutor |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Epstein sentenced to 18 months, served 13 months. | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | A lawsuit was filed over how federal prosecutors handled the accusations against Jeffrey Epstein. | Not mentioned | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acosta interview with Trump transition team where he explained the Epstein deal. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | Signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alexander Acosta was nominated by President Trump to be the secretary of labor. | Not mentioned | View |
| N/A | N/A | Revival of prosecution commenced in SDFL against Epstein resulting in NPA | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acosta began discussing possible employment with Kirkland & Ellis and recused himself. | USAO | View |
| N/A | N/A | Alexander Acosta, as a federal prosecutor, cut a deal with Jeffrey Epstein regarding accusations ... | Miami | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of the investigation requested by U.S. Attorney Acosta. | USAO | View |
| N/A | N/A | Drafting of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | USAO | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Investigation Conclusion | DOJ | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acosta helps Epstein avoid life in prison | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Plea deal / Non-prosecution agreement finalized. | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Breakfast meeting between Acosta and Defense Counsel. | Unknown | View |
| 2025-10-01 | N/A | Meeting between Alexander Acosta and Jay Lefkowitz to finalize the Epstein non-prosecution agreem... | West Palm Beach Marriott on... | View |
| 2025-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched a probe into professional misconduct by Acosta and Villafaña. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2019-07-19 | N/A | Alexander Acosta resigned as U.S. Secretary of Labor due to criticism of the Epstein case. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2019-07-12 | N/A | Acosta resigns as Secretary of Labor. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2019-07-10 | N/A | Alexander Acosta publicly defends his role in the Epstein prosecution. | Washington D.C. (Implied) | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | Judge Marra rules that federal prosecutors broke the law in the Epstein case. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2019-02-15 | N/A | Publication of Miami Herald article regarding Jeffrey Sloman defending Alexander Acosta. | Miami/Palm Beach | View |
| 2019-02-04 | N/A | Approximate date ('Last week') it was revealed OPR opened investigation into Acosta. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2019-02-01 | N/A | Court ruled in favor of victims, stating prosecutors violated CVRA. | Florida federal court | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra ruled that federal prosecutors broke the law regarding the E... | South Florida | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Judge Marra granted summary judgment to victims, ruling prosecutors violated the CVRA. | U.S. District Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021297.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the friction between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (specifically Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Acosta expresses frustration with the defense's 'collateral challenges' and lack of finality, setting a strict deadline of December 7, 2007, for them to commit to the agreement or face trial. The text highlights Acosta's internal justification to OPR regarding his handling of the breach of agreement risks and the involvement of DOJ Headquarters.
DOJ-OGR-00021291.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations in October 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum and the postponement of Epstein's guilty plea. The text highlights USAO suspicions that Epstein's team was delaying the plea to address a civil lawsuit filed by a victim in New York and alleges Epstein planted false press stories to discredit victims. Acosta agreed to move the plea date from October 26 to November 20, 2007, citing a desire not to dictate schedules to the State Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021285.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal communications regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts by the prosecution team (Villafaña, Acosta) to limit the disclosure of the agreement's terms, specifically regarding financial damages, to the Palm Beach Police Chief and the public. The document outlines the specific provisions of the NPA, including the guilty plea to solicitation of minors, the 30-month recommended sentence structure, and the handling of victim damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021281.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details internal confusion and justifications regarding the broad immunity given to co-conspirators, with officials claiming they did not realize it would protect high-profile associates. The text also covers negotiations on September 21, 2007, between State Attorney Krischer and federal prosecutor Villafaña regarding Epstein's sexual offender registration and jail time, including a notable email from Krischer stating he was glad the deal was worked out for 'reasons I won't put in writing.'
DOJ-OGR-00021276.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a report (likely OPR) detailing internal communications on September 19, 2007, between prosecutors Villafaña, Lourie, and U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz. While Villafaña and Lourie strongly recommended ending negotiations due to what they perceived as the defense's "bad faith" tactics of re-inserting rejected provisions, Acosta instructed them to continue trying to "work it out" rather than indict immediately. The page ends mid-sentence with Villafaña expressing concern about "caving" to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021266.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the internal confusion and negotiations regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in September 2007. It highlights the lack of clarity on why Epstein's sentence was reduced from 24 to 18 months, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafaña admitting the reduction happened 'somehow' during the 'flip flop' between state and federal charges. The document also documents Acosta's delegation of negotiation authority and communications between the USAO and Epstein's lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal drafting process of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It highlights how Menchel modified Villafaña's draft to specify a two-year state imprisonment term and initially included a federal Rule 11(c) plea option, which was subsequently removed, allegedly by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ('Alex'). The text includes footnotes referencing emails from September 6, 2007, discussing Acosta's refusal to entertain the Rule 11(c) plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
This document is page 50 (SA-76) from a DOJ OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details retrospective interviews with prosecutors (Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) and US Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the decision to offer Epstein a two-year plea deal. The text reveals the prosecution's fear of losing a federal trial ('risk losing everything'), the desire to avoid victim trauma, and Acosta's view of the federal case as merely a 'backstop' to state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021249.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflict and confusion regarding the decision to offer Jeffrey Epstein a plea deal with only a two-year prison term. It highlights Prosecutor Villafaña's shock at the decision, noting she felt it violated sentencing guidelines and that she had not been consulted. The document confirms that U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ultimately made the decision for the two-year term, despite conflicting recollections from supervisors Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie regarding how and when this was communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00021237.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflicts and decision-making process regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in mid-2007. It highlights prosecutor Villafaña's concerns about unauthorized communications between her superiors (Menchel/Lourie) and Epstein's defense team, specifically regarding a state-based plea deal. The text outlines U.S. Attorney Acosta's reasoning for pursuing a state resolution rather than federal charges, citing concerns about victim testimony and legal issues, despite believing the victims' accounts. Footnotes clarify the specifics of the Ashcroft Memo and disputes between Acosta and Sloman regarding who was involved in the decision-making.
DOJ-OGR-00021226.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications between federal prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel) regarding the initial prosecution memorandum for the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights the prosecutors' concerns about Epstein's high-profile defense team, the belief that state prosecutors intentionally sabotaged the case in the grand jury, and strategic discussions about selecting 'clean' victims to ensure a successful indictment. The document also notes Acosta's lack of recollection regarding reading the specific prosecution memo, citing his reliance on senior staff.
DOJ-OGR-00021218.jpg
This document details the initiation of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in May 2006. AUSA Villafaña opened the case, named "Operation Leap Year," due to federal interests and concerns of improper political influence on the state investigation. On July 14, 2006, Villafaña briefed her superiors, U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Criminal Division Chief Jeffrey Sloman, to ensure their support for the high-profile and contentious case.
DOJ-OGR-00021207.jpg
This document is an investigative timeline detailing the roles and responsibilities within the USAO during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation from mid-2006 through mid-2009. It outlines key personnel like Alexander Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie, and Marie Villafaña, along with their positions. The timeline also highlights significant events including the opening of the federal investigation, the signing of an NPA, Epstein's guilty plea in state court, and his release from incarceration.
DOJ-OGR-00021195.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents (page xix) from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines findings that prosecutors (Acosta, Villafaña, Lourie) did not act on improper influence or provide improper benefits based on relationships with defense counsel. However, section V explicitly states that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the investigation through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and a state plea deal based on flawed policy applications.
DOJ-OGR-00010449.jpg
This document is page 3 of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that a 240-month sentence recommended by Probation is excessive given the conditions of her confinement (solitary, threats against her life) and argues she should not receive a sentence appropriate for Epstein. It also provides context regarding the previous 'sweetheart deal' Epstein received in Florida under Alexander Acosta, noting the public outcry that followed.
DOJ-OGR-00003315.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's placement on work release following his guilty plea. It highlights the disconnect between the USAO's expectation of 'continuous confinement' and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office's decision to allow work release, as well as the legal maneuvering by Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz) to secure this privilege. The document establishes that while the USAO threatened to investigate if Epstein received special treatment, State Attorney Krischer confirmed Epstein's technical eligibility for the program.
DOJ-OGR-00003310.jpg
This document page details the legal maneuvering in May 2008 regarding the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Whitley) petitioned the Deputy Attorney General to review the case, arguing that federal involvement was unwarranted and politically motivated due to Epstein's 'close ties' to former President Bill Clinton. The page also notes that the USAO, under instruction from the Deputy AG's office, postponed a June 2 deadline for Epstein's plea agreement to allow for this high-level review.
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-00003282.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the specific negotiations regarding Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights the inclusion of the controversial clause granting immunity to 'any potential co-conspirator,' which AUSA Villafaña added and DOJ official Lourie failed to reject, despite Lourie explicitly rejecting a separate request for an immigration waiver. The document also records Lourie's later admission to OPR that the broad non-prosecution agreement likely stemmed from U.S. Attorney Acosta's reluctance to charge Epstein at all.
DOJ-OGR-00003262.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal conflicts within the USAO in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. Prosecutor Marie Villafaña urged for continued investigation, specifically a trip to New York to interview employees and efforts to seize Epstein's computers, citing a recent interview with a victim recruited at age 14. However, US Attorney Alexander Acosta prioritized maintaining control of the case over DOJ intervention, leading to delays in investigative steps and a stay in litigation to accommodate meetings with Epstein's defense team.
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-00003207.jpg
This document, page 31 of a DOJ report (likely the OGR report), details the professional biographies and specific roles of USAO officials Jeffrey Sloman, Matthew Menchel, and Andrew Lourie in the Epstein investigation and the negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights Sloman's negotiation of an NPA addendum, Menchel's communication of the two-year plea deal, and Lourie's role in the NPA negotiations before his departure. The text also notes Alexander Acosta's resignation as Labor Secretary in 2019 due to criticism regarding the Epstein case.
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-00003183.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the timeline following Jeffrey Epstein's August 2019 suicide, including the dismissal of his indictment in SDNY and the conclusion of CVRA litigation in Florida where the court found the government had not litigated in bad faith but had violated the CVRA. It summarizes the appellate history of 'Jane Doe 1' seeking a writ of mandamus in the 11th Circuit regarding the non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Additionally, it marks the initiation of the OPR investigation into DOJ attorney misconduct, triggered by a request from Senator Ben Sasse following the Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting.
DOJ-OGR-00004598.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding the notification of victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights that prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta) deliberately chose not to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or their rights to damages, citing concerns that doing so would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses and give the appearance of financial motivation. The document specifically references interviews with victim Courtney Wild and others in early 2008 where the existence of the signed NPA was withheld.
Possible employment
Discussions regarding Acosta's employment with the firm.
NPA § 2255 Language
Proposal to resolve disagreements over interpretation of the NPA relating to victim restitution/rights.
Modification of Agreement
Proposed modification to the DPA which the defense claims was never agreed to.
Unknown (referenced in text)
Included in submission materials.
Victim Notification
Informed defense that USAO would defer to State Attorney's discretion regarding notifying victims about Epstein's state plea hearing.
Victim notification
Letter referenced by Lefkowitz in his response regarding victim notification and FBI involvement.
NPA Negotiations and Deadlines
Acosta expresses frustration with delay tactics and collateral challenges, expecting a decision to reaffirm or unwind the agreement by Dec 7, 2007.
Plea hearing delays and defense tactics
Acosta complained that Epstein was in violation of the September agreement and that the defense team was using tactics to challenge resolutions collaterally.
Plea hearing delays and defense tactics
Acosta complained that Epstein was in violation of the September agreement and that the defense team was using tactics to challenge resolutions collaterally.
Plea hearing delays and defense tactics
Acosta complained that Epstein was in violation of the September agreement and that the defense team was using tactics to challenge resolutions collaterally.
Work Release Eligibility
Asserted Epstein is entitled to any sentence available including work release as long as it doesn't violate NPA.
Breakfast Meeting
Breakfast meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz.
Debrief
Acosta communicated with Sloman about his conversation with Lefkowitz.
Breakfast Meeting
Meeting between US Attorney and Defense Counsel.
Breakfast Meeting
A meeting cited in the investigation; OPR determined it did not lead to the NPA (which was signed earlier) or benefit Epstein significantly.
Follow up
Reiterated the 'misunderstanding' argument regarding the Sept 12 meeting and requested non-registrable plea
Plea agreement
Discussed need for Epstein to plead to a registrable offense
Internal discussion
Discussion following Sanchez emails
Registration Requirement
According to Villafaña, Acosta called to say registration was non-negotiable. (Note: Krischer did not recall this interaction).
Proposed 'hybrid' federal plea agreement
Acosta stating he doesn't typically sign plea agreements and that the trial team should only go forward if they support and sign it.
Deadline Strategy
Asked to stick to deadline; opined it was extreme to allow defense to argue to different agencies.
Update on Oosterbaan and Investigative Steps
Informed Acosta that Oosterbaan could join via phone. Requested guidance on interviewing NY assistants while negotiating plea.
Plea agreement
Direct discussions regarding plea agreement.
Breakfast Meeting
Meeting discussed in OPR report; OPR found no evidence it led to significant decisions benefiting Epstein.
Response to NPA proposal
Rejected the proposal stating it raised troubling questions and noted incongruity of fitting civil statutes into criminal pleas.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity