← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mark Filip’s Role: The Missing Link in the Epstein Cover-Up (Part 1)
00:10:41
Kenneth Starr’s email to Mark Filip wasn’t just a lawyer whining about aggressive prosecutors—it was a calculated appeal to the very power center that ultimately let Epstein walk. Starr complained bitterly that the Florida team was digging too hard...
Loading summary
Transcript8 lines
- [00:02]
A
During Memorial Day at Lowe's Shop Household must haves for less. Save $80 on the Char Broil Performance Series 4 Burner Grill to chef up something special plus get up to 45% off. Select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's Lowe's we help you save valid through 527 while supplies last selection varies by location. See Lowes.com for details.
- [00:25]
B
Visit your nearby Lowes Craving something specific from global flavors to viral snacks, TikTok has it all. If you can dream it, you can make it right at home. Find your next favorite dish on TikTok.
- [00:45]
C
What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. So there's a lot of people out there that are under the impression that that Alex Acosta was the one who made the decision to enter into the NPA with Jeffrey Epstein. But the truth is, it wasn't him. And today I'm going to provide some receipts that show you the conversation between Kenneth Star, one of Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis, and of course, the same Ken Starr that was in charge of the Bill Clinton probe, to Mark Philippe, who was the Assistant Attorney General at the time the deal was was finalized. And I've told you from the very beginning that this is the man that was responsible for it. And unlike the hucksters and the grifters and the snake oil salesmen out there, here's the receipt. May 19, 2008 from Kenneth Star to Mark Philip. I like to call him Mark Philippe because that makes him sound like a bigger douche, but we'll call him his real name, Mark Philip Dear Judge Philip, in his confirmation hearings last fall, Judge Mukase, who is the Attorney General at the time, by the way, lifted up the finest traditions of the Department of Justice in assuring the United States Senate and the American people of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. Your own confirmation hearings echo that bedrock determination to assure that the Department conduct itself with honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of of federal criminal law. We come to you in the spirit and respectfully ask you to review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident that the circumstances at issue warrant such an examination. Based on our collective experiences, as well as those of other former senior Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, we have never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus, while neither of us has previously made such a request, we do so now in the recognition that both the Department's reputation as well as the due process rights of our client are at issue. Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the request of U.S. attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of the case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a letter from the head of CEOs informing us that CEOs had conducted a review of the case. By its own admission, the CEO's review was limited both factually and legally. Part of the self imposed limitation was CEO's abstention from addressing our allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors, even though such misconduct was, as we contend, it is inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Office in Miami. Moreover, CEOs did not assess the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement now in effect, nor did CEOs review the federal prosecutors inappropriate efforts to implement those terms. We detail this point below by way of background. We were informed by Mr. Acosta that at his request, CEOs would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate and, in his words, fair. That is not what occurred. Instead, CEOs has now acknowledged that we had raised many compelling arguments against the USAO's suggested novel application of federal law in this matter. Even so, CEOs concluded in minimalist fashion that that we do not see anything that says to us categorically that a federal case should not be brought and that the U.S. attorney would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein, thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal prosecution was warranted. Rather than assessing whether prosecution would be appropriate, CEOs using a low baseline for its evaluation determined only that it would not be impossible to prove certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEO's review failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a Federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. We respect CEO's conclusion that its authority to review misconduct issues was precluded by criminal division practice. We further respect CEO's view that it understood its mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine whether the USAO would be abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than making its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However, we respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against Mr. Epstein, we summarize the facts and circumstances of the matter below the two base level concerns we hold that are 1. Federal prosecution in this matter is not warranted based on the purely local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statutes to facts such as these and to the actions of federal authorities are both highly questionable and and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues instead affect the appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequence beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. In a precedent shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy questions and and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law, the USAO in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and reason. Federal prosecutors stretch the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami as a condition of deferring prosecution required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in southern Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved. Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case to a New York Times reporter. The immediate result of this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an onslaught of civil lawsuits, all save one, brought by the First Assistant's former boutique law firm in Miami. The facts in this case all revolve around the classic state crime of solicitation of prostitution. The state attorney's office in Palm beach county had conducted a diligent investigation, convened the grand jury that returned an indictment, and made a final determination about how to proceed. That's where in our federal republic this matter should rest. Mr. Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue of his conduct, and the only reason the state has not resolved the matter is that federal prosecutors in Miami have continued to insist that we, Mr. Epstein's counsel, approach and demand from the state attorney's office a harsher charge and a more severe punishment than that office believes are appropriate under the circumstances. Yet despite the USAO's refusal to allow the state to resolve the matter on the terms the state has determined are appropriate, the USAO has not made any attempt to coordinate its effort with the state. In fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement would be conditioned on Mr. Epstein persuading the state to seek a criminal punishment unlike that imposed on other defendants within the jurisdiction of the State attorney for similar conduct from the inception of the USAO's involvement in the case which at the end of the day is a case about solicitation of prostitution which within the confines of Palm beach county
- [08:57]
A
during Memorial Day at Lowe's Shop household must haves for less save $80 on a char broil performance series 4 burner grill to chef up something special plus get up to 45% off select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's Lowe's we help you save valid through 527 while supplies last selection varies by location. See lowe's.com for details.
- [09:20]
B
Visit your nearby Lowe's
- [09:25]
C
we have asked ourselves why the Department of Justice is involved. Regrettably, we're unable to suggest any appropriate basis for the department's involvement. Mr. Epstein has no criminal history whatsoever. Also, Mr. Epstein has never been the subject of general media interest until a few years ago after it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified by prosecutors. These statutes are intended to target crimes of truly national and international scope. Specifically, 1591 was enacted to combat human trafficking. Section 2422 is aimed at sexual predation or of minors through the Internet, and section 2423 deals with sex tourism. The nature of these crimes results in multi jurisdictional problems that state and local authorities cannot effectively confront on their own. However, Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and thus does not implicate federal involvement. After researching every reported case brought under US Code 18, Section 1591, 2422B, and 2423B, we found that not a single case involves facts or a scenario similar to the situation at hand. Our review of each precedent reflects that there have been no reported prosecutions under section 1591 of a John whose conduct with a minor lacked force, coercion, or fraud and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There have likewise been no case under section 2422, a crime of communication, where there was no use of the Internet and where the content of phone communication did not contain any inducing or enticing of a minor to have illegal sexual activity as expressly required by the language of the statute. Furthermore, the government's contention that the routine habit can fill the factual and legal void created by the lack of evidence that such communication ever occurred sets this case apart from from every reported case brought under section 2422B. Lastly, there are no reported cases of violation of section 2423B of a person whose dominant purpose in traveling was merely to go to his own home. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up episode one right here and in the next episode we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [11:58]
A
During Memorial Day at Lowe's Shop Household must haves for less save $80 on a char broil performance series 4 burner grill to chef up something special plus get up to 45% off select major appliances to keep things fresh Our best lineup is here at Lowe's Lowe's we help you save valid through 527 while supplies last selection varies by location. See Lowes.com for details.
- [12:21]
B
Visit your nearby Lowe's.