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-00021474.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report regarding the Epstein case, specifically criticizing Alexander Acosta's handling of victim notification. It details how Acosta intervened to stop his staff (Villafaña and Sloman) from implementing their notification plan, instead deferring responsibility to the State Attorney and Chief Reiter without ensuring a proper process was in place. Consequently, many victims were unaware of Epstein's plea hearing and only learned of the outcome through the media or after the fact.
DOJ-OGR-00021472.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing the failure of the USAO (specifically Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman) to coordinate with the State Attorney's Office regarding victim notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 2008 plea hearing. It reveals that despite a draft letter in December 2007 intended to provide a list of victims to the state, no evidence exists that the letter was sent, leaving state prosecutors (Krischer and Belohlavek) unaware of the federal identified victims. A footnote highlights that Epstein's attorneys explicitly asked the USAO not to inform victims of their rights under state charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021471.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing Alexander Acosta for 'poor judgment' during the Jeffrey Epstein case. Specifically, it details how Acosta failed to ensure victims identified in the federal investigation were notified of the state plea hearing, erroneously deferring this responsibility to the State Attorney without communicating that decision or providing the necessary victim information. The report highlights that while not legally required to notify victims of a state hearing, Acosta should have recognized the logistical failures that would result from a lack of coordination.
DOJ-OGR-00021469.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the decision-making process behind the failure to notify victims of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 state plea hearing. It highlights a December 19, 2007 letter where US Attorney Acosta deferred notification responsibility to the State Attorney, citing jurisdiction issues. The text reveals internal conflicts and justifications, including fear that victim notification might cause the plea deal (NPA) to fall apart or lead to victim impeachment.
DOJ-OGR-00021460.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing whether federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) or Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It discusses the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007, and notes a conflict between prosecutor Villafaña, who recalled suggesting victim consultation, and her supervisors (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) who did not recall such discussions. The report concludes that while the VRRA may have been violated, there was no conclusive evidence that the lack of consultation was an intentional effort to silence victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021440.jpg
This document details the FBI and USAO's process for notifying victims of the resolution of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation in July and August 2008. It includes a script used by FBI agents to inform victims of Epstein's plea deal (18 months imprisonment, sex offender registration, restitution) and documents the transmission of letters to victims both within and outside the US. A footnote highlights internal DOJ discussions involving Acosta and Villafaña regarding the finalization of the victim list and the exclusion of new victims identified after the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021419.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the conflict and confusion regarding victim notification in the Epstein case. It highlights discrepancies between USAO officials (Sloman, Acosta) and DOJ Criminal Division (Mandelker) regarding who decided to defer victim notification to state authorities. It also includes excerpts from Epstein's lawyer, Lefkowitz, aggressively arguing that federal victims had no standing in the state case and should not be contacted by the FBI or informed of 'fictitious rights.'
DOJ-OGR-00021387.jpg
This document is page 187 of an OPR report (filed in 2021/2023 court cases) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The report concludes that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by pursuing a state-based resolution and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) without adequate consideration or team consultation, allowing Epstein to manipulate the process. It highlights that the decision left victims, the public, and federal agents (FBI and line AUSAs) dissatisfied with the justice achieved.
DOJ-OGR-00021384.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the handling of the Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office. It details a significant communication breakdown between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and AUSA Marie Villafaña regarding the signing of Epstein's 2007 plea agreement (NPA), where Villafaña felt forced to sign a deal she opposed while Acosta claimed he intended to give her veto power. It also highlights how senior management (Menchel) blocked Villafaña from meeting directly with Acosta, resulting in final decisions being made without input from the prosecutor most familiar with the facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021381.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report critiques the plea negotiations between the USAO (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense. It highlights that the 18-month sentence was a reduction from an initial 'non-negotiable' 2-year offer, a decision for which OPR could find no documented justification or legal basis. The report concludes that Acosta viewed the federal case merely as a 'backstop' to state charges, failing to seek a punishment that matched the severity of Epstein's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00021378.jpg
This page from an OPR report critiques the USAO's handling of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically regarding the failure to seize Epstein's computers. It details how prosecutors Sloman and Villafaña postponed litigation to obtain the computers, and how US Attorney Acosta signed the NPA—which effectively ended the pursuit of this critical evidence—despite likely being aware of the ongoing efforts to obtain it. The report argues the USAO gave away significant leverage and potential evidence of crimes without proper consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00021374.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It criticizes the reliance on state procedures for the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), noting that the specific state charges selected allowed Epstein to avoid sex offender registration in New Mexico due to age-of-consent laws. It also details that Acosta was aware the Palm Beach Police Department distrusted the State Attorney's Office, yet he proceeded with a plea deal that relied heavily on state authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00021370.jpg
This document is page 170 of a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report evaluating Alexander Acosta's conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by prematurely resolving the federal investigation through a state plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) based on a flawed application of the 'Petite policy.' The report notes that Acosta failed to strengthen the federal case (e.g., by obtaining Epstein's missing computers) and that the crimes involved substantial federal interests including the sexual exploitation of children and interstate travel.
DOJ-OGR-00021359.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that the frequency of meetings between USAO officials (Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz) was not evidence of improper favoritism, given the high-profile nature of the case and the resources of the defendant. It details specific meetings in late 2007 and early 2008, noting that despite defense efforts to involve higher-level DOJ officials (Fisher, Filip), the USAO maintained its position on the federal investigation and the NPA. The report ultimately finds no evidence that these meetings resulted in substantial improper benefits to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021353.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the origins of the two-year plea deal. It details an allegation by prosecutor Villafaña that former First Assistant Jeff Sloman told her that prosecutor Matt Menchel pushed for the two-year deal as a personal favor ('do her a solid') to Epstein's defense attorney, Lilly Ann Sanchez. The report notes that OPR found no merit to this allegation, with Sloman testifying he did not recall making the remark seriously and did not believe Menchel would do such a thing.
DOJ-OGR-00021352.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing potential conflicts of interest within the USAO regarding the Epstein case. It details interviews with officials Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta, concluding that personal relationships with defense attorneys did not improperly influence the case. The text highlights Acosta's eventual recusal in late 2008 due to employment talks with Kirkland & Ellis, and a separate inquiry regarding his potential role at Harvard Law School given Alan Dershowitz's involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report (page 146 of the original report, filed in court in 2021 and 2023) detailing the justifications provided by USAO prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta) for entering into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein rather than pursuing a federal trial. The prosecutors cite significant evidentiary challenges, including unreliable witnesses, victims who 'loved' Epstein or would claim they lied about their age, and the trauma a trial would cause victims. Acosta admits his knowledge of the case facts was not 'granular' and that he relied on the diligence of his team, particularly Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021344.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations, specifically noting that key decisions were made before US Attorney Acosta met with defense counsel Lefkowitz. The report cites prosecutor Villafaña's explanation that the decision to pursue an NPA was driven by evidentiary risks and victim privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00021342.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that there was no evidence that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein was influenced by bribes, corruption, or his wealth and status. It notes that while Epstein was not initially well-known to the FBI agents or prosecutors in 2006, press coverage in July 2006 alerted them to his high-profile connections, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Kevin Spacey. An FBI agent is quoted acknowledging they knew who had been on Epstein's plane.
DOJ-OGR-00021333.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. It details the public scrutiny following the 2018 Miami Herald report and OPR's investigation into whether the 'sweetheart deal' was motivated by improper influence. The text confirms that Alexander Acosta reviewed, revised, and approved the NPA, accepting full responsibility for it during his OPR interview.
DOJ-OGR-00021309.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal review of the Jeffrey Epstein case in 2008. It describes how Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and prosecutor John Roth reviewed defense appeals (initiated by Ken Starr) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), with Filip ultimately dismissing the defense's arguments as 'ludicrous' and refusing to meet with Epstein. The text also highlights prosecutor Marie Villafaña's sarcastic and angry reaction to learning that State Attorney Barry Krischer had secretly negotiated a light 90-day jail sentence for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021303.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the internal Department review between February and June 2008 regarding the Epstein case. It highlights that while Epstein's defense sought a broad review of misconduct and NPA terms, the DOJ only reviewed federal jurisdiction issues. The document also records a 'stand down' order where Oosterbaan instructed a CEOS attorney to cease involvement, and details the formal notification sent by the USAO to the Civil Rights Division classifying the case as 'child prostitution' rather than a matter of 'national interest.'
DOJ-OGR-00021301.jpg
This DOJ OPR report excerpt details the breakdown of plea negotiations in early January 2008. Epstein's defense team (Sanchez, Starr, Lefkowitz) pressed US Attorney Acosta and Sloman for a 'watered-down resolution' that involved no jail time and no sex offender registration, threatening 'ugliness in DC' regarding alleged leaks. Prosecutor Villafaña prepared contingency plans to restart the investigation, including interviewing victims in New York and abroad, while Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior conducted a full review of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg
This document outlines the negotiations between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz) regarding the language of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically Section 2255 concerning victim rights and monetary damages. On December 19, 2007, Acosta proposed revised language to clarify victim rights as if Epstein had been convicted federally, but the defense rejected this, arguing it was legally incongruous to fit a civil statute into a criminal plea. The document highlights the mounting frustration of the prosecution regarding what they perceived as intentional delays by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021299.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations between the USAO (Acosta) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Dershowitz) in December 2007. Following defense submissions, the USAO initiated a de novo review of evidence by Criminal Chief Robert Senior and held a meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, where the defense argued state charges did not apply. The defense subsequently threatened to seek review from DOJ Washington (AAG Fisher), prompting Acosta to request an expedited review to preserve a scheduled January 4th plea date.
Reflection on the NPA
Acosta admitted they didn't 'take a step back and say, let’s evaluate how this train is moving?'
NPA Approval
Acosta affirmed he approved the NPA and accepts responsibility for it.
N/A
Stating agreement already binds them not to make public except under FOIA; asking '[W]hat more does he want?'
N/A
Setting up a call to discuss 'who we tell and how much' and adding 'Nice job with a difficult negotiation.'
Victim Notification
Complaining that Acosta assured him the office would not contact identified individuals or witnesses.
Withholding information
Criticism of the U.S. Attorney's office for intentionally withholding information from the court.
Plea Agreement
Acosta met privately with one of Epstein's lawyers, leading to the agreement to seal the plea deal.
Response to Acosta's letter
Response to Acosta regarding the agreement.
Unknown
Refusing private 'interlocutory' appeals without staff present.
Breach of Assurance
Claimed Acosta assured office would not contact identified individuals or potential witnesses.
Epstein's Jail Treatment
Stated Epstein received highly unusual treatment that undermined the purpose of a jail sentence.
Plea Agreement
Private meeting resulting in the agreement to seal the plea deal.
Victim Notification
Complaint that Acosta's office violated assurance not to contact identified individuals or potential witnesses.
Plea Agreement
Acosta met privately with one of Epstein's lawyers, leading to the agreement to seal the plea deal.
Recusal instruction
Instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter due to conflict of interest.
Meeting follow-up
Thanked Acosta for commitment made during meeting; confirmed assurance that office would not contact identified individuals or witnesses.
Finalizing Non-Prosecution Agreement
Discussion regarding the non-prosecution agreement. Terms agreed upon included not notifying victims, keeping the deal under seal, and canceling grand jury subpoenas.
Epstein's treatment
Acosta stated he did not know Epstein would receive liberal treatment while incarcerated.
Confirmation Hearing
Acosta stated he did not know Epstein would receive liberal treatment while incarcerated.
Epstein Deal
Acosta compelled to briefly address questions about the deal he approved for Epstein.
Explanation of Epstein prosecution decision
Asserted the deal was harsher than state prosecution would have been; described pressure from Epstein's legal team.
Defense of plea deal
Asserted the deal was harsher than state prosecution would have been; described aggressive tactics by defense team.
Epstein Plea Deal Defense
Asserted the deal was harsher than state prosecution would have been; described assault by Epstein's legal team.
Public Statement
Referenced communications with defense team.
Defense of decisions
Described the 'yearlong assault' by Epstein's defense team and their aggressive tactics.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity