← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Epstein Files Unsealed: Ken Starr Pleads His Case To DOJ Brass About Epstein's NPA
00:15:16
Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team didn’t just negotiate within the normal bounds of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Florida—they deliberately went over Alex Acosta’s head and straight to Department of Justice leadership in Washington. When local...
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. As I continue to make my way through some of these unsealed files, it's very, very interesting how much we find about the npa. And in this episode, we're going to take a look at a letter that was sent by Ken Starr to Mark Philip and for whatever reason, Mark Phillips name is redacted. Now you all know who that is, considering he was the one who signed off on on the Epstein npa. So in this episode, we're going to dive right back into the conversation that's taking place between Ken Starr and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team and the Deputy Attorney General at the time, mark Philip. Dear Mr. Redacted. We know what that means. I again want to thank you for this opportunity to explain why we believe that a federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein is unwarranted. I appreciate your having informed us that you already have our May 19 and May 27 communication to the Deputy Attorney General, as well as our prior written submissions to CEOs and the Southern District of Florida. In light of the significant volume of our prior submissions and to facilitate your review, we have drafted four supplemental submissions that will provide a roadmap for your investigation of this matter. Given the bulk of these documents and their appended supporting attachments, you will receive this packet by messenger tomorrow. A Brief Description of each of the four Submissions First, I have included a succinct summary of the facts, law and policy issues at hand. This document sets forth basic overview of the issues and summarizes our principal contentions as to why federal prosecution of this matter is neither appropriate nor nor warranted. The three other submissions include a summary of the irregularities and misconduct that occurred during the federal investigation, a letter from former CEO's attorney that responds to CEO's assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein's case, and a point by point rebuttal to the First Assistant United States Attorney Redacted's recent letter, which we believe contains factual inaccuracies typical of of our correspondence from the United States Attorney's Office in Miami. So what they're doing here is complaining about Alex Acosta. Keep that in mind when everybody tells you that Alex Acosta is the one responsible here. I've told you from the jump bro is a fall guy. Also, for your reference, the package you receive tomorrow will contain a binder including all documentation to which we refer to in our submissions. Finally, we'll be providing a detailed checklist of each submission or a substantive communication to the usao. Our intention is that you have copies of each such document to enhance your review. If there are any that you have not received from The USAO or CEOs, please advise and we will FedEx them to you without delay. As you are likely aware, the Department's prior review of this matter was incomplete and, and by its own admission, not de novo. May 15, 2008 Letter from a Osterbahn without considering the non prosecution agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the state or any of the misconduct, CEOs reviewers tasked with reviewing some of their own previously expressed opinions assessed only whether the U S Attorney would abuse his discretion if he pursued the case. While we appreciate CEO's willingness to examine these limited issues, its conclusion that a prosecution would not be an abuse of discretion rings particularly hollow in light of CEOs admirably candid concessions that we have raised compelling objections, and that a prosecution on these facts would require novel applications of federal law. Indeed, even a brief review of CEO's own mission statement reveals how in opposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that CEO's review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decision in Santos and Quailar, which we believe, illuminating as they do, the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law powerfully demonstrates the substantive vulnerability of the USAO's unprecedented employment or of three federal laws. The Office's interpretation would never pass muster under the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements and should not be countenanced. That is all the more true under the circumstances where the duly appointed US Attorney opined that, in effect, the unitary Executive branch was driving this prosecution. We now know that is not so. What I respectfully request, and what I hope you will provide is is a truly de novo review that is an independent assessment of whether federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is both necessary and warranted in view of the legal and evidentiary hurdles that have been identified, the existence of a state felony plea and sentence that have been advocated by the State Attorney for Palm beach county, and many issues of prosecutorial misconduct and overzealousness that have permeated the investigation. I also request that you provide us with the opportunity during your review to meet with you in person to answer any questions you may have and to elucidate some of the issues in our submission. We believe that an independent review will confirm our strong belief that federal prosecutors would be required to stretch the plain meaning of each element of the enumerated statutes and then to combine these distorted elements and a tenuous chain in order to convict Mr. Epstein. Indeed, just this week and after two years of federal involvement in this matter, Assistant United States Attorney Redacted reinitiated the Federal Grand Jury investigation in direct contravention of the party's non prosecution agreement and issued yet another subpoena seeking evidence in the case. In the subpoena, AUSA redacted directs redacted to appear on July 1, 2008 to give testimony and produce documents to FJJ 07103 West Palm Beach. The attachment to the subpoena seeks documents such as photographs, emails, telephone billing information and contact information that relate to Mr. Epstein as well as specific other people who received protection from Federal prosecution as a result of Mr. Epstein having entered into the September 24, 2000 non prosecution agreement with the USAO. Notably, the non prosecution Agreement contains the following agreed conditions Further upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended and all pending Federal grand jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any terms of the agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. It also guarantees that the person identified in the grand jury subpoena such as redacted and redacted and redacted and others will not be prosecuted. The new grand jury subpoena clearly violates the non prosecution agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the Department of Justice with a full consent and knowledge of the usao, he has not breached the agreement. The recommencing of the Grand Jury is in violation of the agreement. But further, the new investigation which features wide ranging fishing expedition type to search in New York, does not satisfy the very essential elements of Federal statutes that are lacking despite the intensity of an over two year investigation in the Palm beach area. Absent evidence of Internet luring inducement while using the phone travel for the purpose fraud or coercion, the subject of the New York investigation is as lacking in the essential basis for converting a state case into a federal case as is the remainder of the Florida investigation. The reaching out to New York to fill the void emanating from the failures of the Florida investigation compellingly demonstrates the misuse of of federal resources in an overzealous, over personalized, selective and extraordinary attempt to expand federal law to where it has never gone. This last ditch attempt by misredacted reinforces our belief that the USAO does not have facts that without distortion would justify a prosecution of Mr. Epstein. In view of the prosecution's often verbalized desire to punish Mr. Epstein, we believe that the prosecution summary suffers from critical inaccuracies and aggregates the expected testimony of witnesses so as to reach the conclusion of guilt. Our contention is reinforced by the fact that key prosecution witness have provided evidence and testimony that directly undermines the prosecution's misleading and inaccurate summary of the case. Indeed, we now have received statements from three of the principal accusers representative redacted through a state criminal deposition, redacted through a federal FBI USAO sworn and transcribed interview, and redacted through a defense generated sworn transcribed interview. Each of these witnesses categorically denies each essential element that the prosecution will have to prove in order to convert this quintessential state law case into a federal matter. It thus is especially troubling that the USAO has not provided us with the transcript of Ms. Redacted's federal interview, nor the substance of the interviews with Misredacted or Misredacted, nor any information generated by interviews with any of the approximately 40 alleged witnesses that the prosecution claims it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein's guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or during plea negotiations, but we firmly believe that when the government possesses information that goes directly to the target's factual guilt or innocence, the target should be informed about such heartland exculpatory evidence. Most importantly, aside from whether the Department believes Brady obligates disclosure to to a target of a federal investigation prior to the target's formal accusation, no such limit should apply to a department review. Accordingly, we request that you go beneath the face of any summary provided to you by the USAO and instead review the actual witness transcripts and FBI 302s which are essential for you to be able to make a truly independent assessment of the strength and wisdom of any federal prosecution after careful consideration of the record. And as much as it pains me to say this, I simply do not believe federal prosecutors would have been involved at all in this matter if not for Mr. Epstein's personal wealth and publicity. Reported Ties to Former President Bill Clinton A simple Internet search on Mr. Epstein reveals articles and news stories about the former President's personal relationship with Mr. Epstein, explaining and including multi page stories in New York Magazine and Vanity Fair. Mr. Epstein, in fact only came to public's attention a few years ago when he and former president traveled for a week to Africa using Mr. Epstein's airplane, a trip that received a great deal of press coverage. I cannot imagine that the USAO ever would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein lacked this type of notoriety. So you see what's happening here, right? First, it was Bill Clinton who was the enabler, the protector. Then it moved on to other people. Donald Trump's one of them. But for anybody out there that thinks that Bill Clinton never played a huge part, you're crazy, man. He sure did. And it was at the time when all of this was live. So that's something that definitely deserves more discussion. That belief has been reinforced by the significant prosecutorial impropriety and the misconduct throughout the course of this matter. While we describe the majority of these irregularities in another submission, two instances are particularly troubling. First, the USAO authorized the public disclosure of specific details of the open investigation to the New York Times, including descriptions of the prosecution's theory of the case and specific terms of a plea negotiation between the parties. Second, AUSA attempted to enrich friends and close acquaintances by bringing them business in connection with the matter. Specifically, she attempted to appoint a close personal friend of her live in boyfriend to serve as an attorney representative for the women involved in the case. It also bears mentioning that actions taken by FAUSA redacted present an appearance of impropriety that gives us cause for concern. Mr. Adacted's former law partner is currently pursuing a handful of 50 million dollar lawsuits against Mr. Epstein by some of the masseuses. Masseuses. Imagine. Finally, as you know, Mr. Epstein and the USAO entered into an agreement that deferred prosecution to the state in this regard. I simply note that the manner in which this agreement was negotiated contrasts sharply with Mr. Redacted's current representation that the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the state the length of incarceration. This statement is simply not true. Contrary to Mr. Adacted's assertion, federal prosecutors refused to accept what the state believed to be appropriate as to Mr. Epstein's sentence, and instead insisted that Mr. Epstein be required to serve a two year term of imprisonment, which they later decreased to 18 months plus one year of house arrest. Federal prosecutors have not only involved themselves in what is quintessentially a state matter, but their actions have caused a critical appearance of impropriety that raises doubt as to their motivation for investigating and prosecuting Mr. Epstein in the first place. At bottom, we appreciate your willingness to review the matter with a fresh and independent set of eyes. To facilitate your review. I once again request the opportunity to make an oral presentation to supplement our written submissions, and we will promptly respond to inquiries. You may have yours sincerely, Kenneth W. Star, CC Deputy Attorney General, Redacted, but we all know what that means. Mark Philippe. All right, folks. Well, there it is. Just another example of how Jeffrey Epstein's team went above the head of Alex Acosta and went to Main Justice. And if we want to get to the bottom of all of this, that's the part of the story that needs to be exposed. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.