← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
The Law According to DOJ: Why Epstein’s Deal Was “Technically Legal" (Part 2)
00:12:31
The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims’ Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA’s protections did not attach until formal federal charges...
Loading summary
Transcript5 lines
- [00:00]
A
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grange Ranger. For the ones who get it done,
- [00:30]
B
get ready to rev those engines. The 2026 Les Schwab classy chassis parade and car show is back in East Wenatchee, WA. Kick things off Friday, May 1st at 6pm for the big parade plus the after party with live music. Then join us on Saturday, May 2nd at 10:00am at the Eastmont Community park for the car show. It's two days of classic cars, food, music and free family fun for everyone. For all the details, visit eastwardancheewa.gov we'll see you there.
- [01:00]
C
What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking back up where we left off with the CVRA transcripts. The court alright, so is there any point in conferring with these victims? Mr. Lee your honor, I will always confer sit down with Jane Doe 1 and 2 with the two agents and Ms. Vilafana will be happy to sit down with them. Judge Mara but it wouldn't make any difference in terms of the outcome. Would maybe give them the benefit of your explanation of why you did what you did and why you came to the conclusion you did. But it's not going to change your decision in any way. Mr. Lee if it's going to change, it would have to be done at a level higher than mine. Your honor. Judge Mara what was I didn't understand your statement earlier that Mr. Epstein wanted some kind of review of higher authority within the department in terms of whether or not the federal government was going to insist on preserving any civil claims. Mr. Lee your honor, the agreement was consummated by the parties in December of 2007. Mr. Epstein's attorneys wanted further review of the agreement higher up within the Department of Justice. And they exercise their ability to do that. Judge Mera Meaning again, I'm trying to understand. He wasn't happy with the agreement that he had signed. Mr. Lee Basically, yes. And he was trying to maintain that the government or the agreement should be set aside for more favorable terms. Judge Mara now in terms of. You don't dispute that? Jane do one and two. First of All. Do you have any objection to Jane Doe 2 being added to. To a petitioner in the case, Mr. Lee? No, I don't. Judge Mara. I'll grant that request. You don't dispute that they're victims within the meaning of the act? Mr. Lee? It depends to which there is one Jane Doe. Well, there is one individual who is one of Mr. Edwards clients who we do not believe to be a victim. If these are SN and CW Then we have no objection. And I can discuss, if I may have a moment, your honor. Your honor, I have been corrected. We have no objection. The court. Okay, Mr. Lee. We agree. They're victims. Judge Mara. Now, that is your position then, regarding the right of a victim of a crime that is potentially subject to federal prosecution to be. To have input with a prosecutor, your office, before a resolution or decision not to prosecute is made. Do you say that there is no right to confer under those circumstances because there is no case pending. So any decision not to prosecute, there is no right to confer. But the right to confer only is triggered once there is an indictment or an information filed. Mr. Lee. That is correct, your honor. The attorney general's guidelines, which were published in May of 2005, provide that the rights in 3771A1 through 8 accrue when a charge is filed in federal court. Now, that may change after the Dean decision. It's under consideration. But that's the government's position. Judge Mara. All right. And so are you saying all of the rights he gets interrupted by Mr. Lee? Your Honor, some of the rights clearly will only pertain after a charge has been filed, the one that pertains to notice of public hearing. Public proceedings, though, can't apply until there are public proceedings to be held. Of course, these guidelines are a floor and not a ceiling. They're to be applied with common sense. If somebody. If charges of assault were being investigated and somebody would come in and say, the perpetrator whom you're investigating is getting ready to indict, has been threatening me, following me, and I need help because he or she is going to do something bad to me and try to take care of me before I can testify in the grand jury, this person would not be turned away because the charge hasn't been filed yet. Those guidelines would be applied with. With common sense. But specifically, insofar as a 5, which is the right to consult with the attorney for the government in the case, that would not accrue until there is a daze, and in our view, a case doesn't come in to being until the charges are filed. Judge MARA and are there any reported decisions that you are aware of where any court has found a right to confer before charges are filed? Mr. Lee I'm not aware of any. Your honor, the court all right, thank you. Mr. Lee. Thank you, your honor. The court counsel Brad Edwards, I would just like to address that Dean decision. They're asking you that you just simply ignore it because the decision clearly was a decision made because as it is a direct result of a plea deal being worked out prior to the victims being able to speak the court. But there was a pending case, though, correct? EDWARDS As I understand the decision, the court as I understand the plea deal, it was negotiated prior to charges being filed. Then there was a filed case and the court had the ability to accept the plea or not. And at that point you would have the ability to entertain or assert an objection because you weren't consulted about the plea. So there was a proceeding or case in which you can assert a right to confer. How do you do that before a case is filed? How do you enforce the government or force the government to consult about not filing a case? Every case they have to consult with the victim before they decide not to prosecute. Edwards no, there are limitations. I think in my reply, I refer to the case US vs Rubin where they discuss that very scenario, stating that there are at least has to be criminal charges contemplated by the government or before these rights kick in, the rights under D3 and A5, the right to confer, and the Dean case clearly states rights under the CVRA apply before prosecution is underway. Logically, this includes the CVRA establishment of victim's reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government. And that's read in the plain reading of the statute as well the first case in interpreting it, I think it's pretty clear that the distinction they're making between BP and this case is it a distinction without a real difference in that the court is saying you have this right before the case is filed, which is exactly what we are saying. And the result in that case was they filed the case later, let them plea out on some sweet deal. And in this case, what we have is they avoided that. They decided not to file. Either way, you deprive the victim of their right before making that decision. And the main problem that the court had in Dean, as it states the victims do not have rights when there is an impact and the eventual scent is substantially less, whereas here their input is received after the parties have reached the tentative deal. Well, the government just stated the deal was reached back in October of 2007. However, attached to their response is a letter to my client petitioner dated January 10, 2008. After the time then counsel just put on the record that the deal was already finalized. And it starts the opening paragraph, talks about whether they wanted the victims to have the right to confer. It says this case is currently under investigation. This is January 2008. This case has been a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. Sounds like the exact opposite of we want you to come in and and confer and let us know what you really feel about this. That's our biggest problem with what's happened here and that she just wasn't given a voice and if somebody would have heard her, we believe there would have been a different outcome. To go back into a room right now and talk after there was already been a plea negotiated without your honor ordering that in this case the plea deal needs to be vacated, it's illegal and give her her rights. JUDGE MERRILL well, would you agree or not that Mr. Epstein pled guilty to the state charges? Probably, at least in part a reliance upon the fact that he had an agreement with the federal government they weren't going to prosecute. Would you concede that or would you present evidence to that effect? Mr. Edwards of course we would. Yes, of course. Sure. The court so you agree that Mr. Epstein is now sitting in the Palm Beach County Jail, a convicted felon serving 18 months of imprisonment, at least in material part because he relied upon the government's non prosecution agreement. EDWARDS Yes, I agree that he's sitting there because he's guilty and maybe he took the plea rather than going to trial and being found guilty later in part because of this non prosecution agreement that was worked out behind the other victims backs. I would agree with that. JUDGE MARA so he accepted the state deal in part because he knew he had an agreement from the federal government that they weren't going to prosecute. BRAD Edwards I presume. I speculate that that's true. JUDGE MARA so you want me now then to set aside the government's agreement with him because there was no conferring, yet he has already accepted a plea agreement and is sitting in custody in part in reliance on that agreement. I mean I can undo the agreement in your theory, but how do I, Mr. Epstein, in a sense would be then adversely affected by my actions when he acted in reliance upon the agreement. How does that work? BRAD EDWARDS Certainly we're only asking you to vacate the agreement. I understand. And your point is well taken. And I believe that was the point. In time, his rights may kick in and say, wait, I was relying on this other deal so I wouldn't be prosecuted for these hundreds of other girls that I molested, that I pled guilty over here to the one girl that I will admit to molesting. So maybe I can get to withdraw my plea. But the last thing he wants to do, because if he ends up going to trial, I'll be in prison for the rest of my life like any other person who ever did this crime would be. He could have that argument, I guess, but still wouldn't really work well for him. Judge Mara all right, so you still think I should set aside the agreement, require the government to confer Brad Edwards work out a plea that is equal to the crimes that he committed and that are favorable. After they confer with the victims and it's within their discretion, of course, they can decide on their own that, hey, I think that the agreement was fair. After they talk with the victims. That could happen. I don't know if a reasonable person that would do that, but it could happen. The court apparently. You're not suggesting that these persons are not reasonable? Brad Edwards I'm suggesting that they haven't conferred with the victims and that if they took into consideration what these two in the courtroom have to say, I don't think that we'd be in the same position we're in right now. Judge Mara they never spoken to your client about what happened to them. Brad Edwards they have spoken to them about what happened. Maybe not about what the girls wanted to happen as a result of the case, which is part of conferring to decide that. That these girls wanted money on their own, which is basically what this non prosecution agreement entails. That the language that he'll agree to liability in a civil case, that's not what these girls. They want justice. They want him in prison now more than ever. The reason they stated they kept this agreement from the girls and they basically conceded we didn't tell the girls about this agreement. Well, the reason is because they would have objected and, and they wouldn't have been able to sign off on this and the victims would have had a voice and we'd still be going through litigation. The exact problem they tried to prevent, at least in their terms, which was the impeachment of these girls at a later trial is still available to anybody once the civil suits are filed anyway. They have three One, we didn't have to talk to them. Two, we did talk to them, sort of. And if you buy that, the reason we didn't talk to them was we were trying to prevent them from being impeached later. None of them trumped the victim's rights to confer prior to plea negotiation. That's why, your honor, we would ask this court to enter an order vacating that previous plea agreement as illegal, ask them to confer with the victims once again or for the first time and work out a negotiated plea to that accord. Judge MARA well, all you can ask them to do is confer. I can't ask them to do anything beyond that. I mean, it's up to them to negotiate. Brad Edwards I wouldn't quarrel with that. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [13:31]
A
Day or night. VRBoCare is here 247 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out. From the moment you book to the moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.
- [14:01]
B
Get ready to rev those engines. The 2026 Les Schwab Classy Chassis parade and car show is back in East Wenatchee, Washington County. Kick things off Friday, May 1 at 6pm for the Big parade plus the after party with live music. Then join us on Saturday, May 2nd at 10:00am at the Eastmont Community park for the car show. It's two days of classic cars, food, music and free family fun for everyone. For all the details, visit eastwananchewa.gov we'll see you there.