Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Epstein Files Unsealed: Ken Starr Pleads His Case To DOJ Brass About Epstein's NPA (4/30/26)

Transcript

Epstein Files Unsealed: Ken Starr Pleads His Case To DOJ Brass About Epstein's NPA (4/30/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. As I continue to make my way through
0:07
some of these unsealed files, it's very very interesting how
0:10
much we find about the NPA. And in this episode,
0:15
we're going to take a look at a letter that
0:16
was sent by Ken Starr to Mark Phillip. And for
0:20
whatever reason, Mark Phillips's name is redacted. Now you all
0:24
know who that is, considering he was the one who
0:26
signed off on the Epstein NPA. So in this episode,
0:31
we're going to dive right back into the conversation that's
0:34
taking place between Ken Starr and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team
0:39
and the Deputy Attorney General at the time, Mark Phillip.
0:43
Dear mister redacted, we know what that means. I again
0:47
want to thank you for this opportunity to explain why
0:49
we believe that a federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein is unwarranted.
0:54
I appreciate your having informed us that you already have
0:58
our May nineteenth and May twinwenty seventh communication to the
1:01
Deputy Attorney General, as well as our prior written submissions
1:05
to CEOs and the Southern District of Florida in light
1:09
of the significant volume of our prior submissions, and to
1:12
facilitate your review, we have drafted for supplemental submissions that
1:16
will provide a roadmap for your investigation of this matter.
1:19
Given the bulk of these documents and their appended supporting attachments,
1:23
you will receive this packet by messenger tomorrow. A brief
1:26
description of each of the four submissions follows. First, I
1:30
have included assisting summary of the facts, law, and policy
1:34
issues at hand. This document sets forth basic overview of
1:38
the issues and summarizes our principal contentions as to why
1:42
federal prosecution of this matter is neither appropriate nor warranted.
1:47
The three other submissions include a summary of the irregularities
1:51
and misconduct that occurred during the federal investigation, a letter
1:54
from former CEO's attorney redacted that responds to CEO's assessment
2:00
of its limited review of mister Epstein's case, and a
2:03
point by point rebuttal to the first Assistant United States
2:06
Attorney Redacted's recent letter, which we believe contains factual inaccuracies
2:11
typical of our correspondence from the United States Attorney's Office
2:15
in Miami. So what they're doing here is complaining about
2:18
alex Acosta. Keep that in mind when everybody tells you
2:21
that alex Acosta is the one responsible here, I've told
2:25
you from the jump bro is a fall guy. Also,
2:31
for your reference, the package you receive tomorrow will contain
2:34
a binder including all documentation to which we refer in
2:38
our submissions. Finally, we'll be providing a detailed checklist of
2:42
each submission or a substantative communication to the USAO. Our
2:46
intention is that you have copies of each such document
2:50
to enhance your review. If there are any that you
2:53
have not received from the USAO or CEOs, please advise
2:58
and we will fed XM to U without delay. As
3:01
you are likely aware of, the department's prior review of
3:04
this matter was incomplete and by its own admission not
3:08
Denovo May fifteenth, two thousand and eight letter from a
3:12
Osterbon without considering the non prosecution agreement that left this
3:17
matter to be resolved in the state, or any of
3:20
the misconduct. CEO's reviewers, tasked with reviewing some of their
3:24
own previously expressed opinions, assessed only whether the US attorney
3:28
would abuse his discretion if you pursued the case. While
3:32
we appreciate CEO's willingness to examine these limited issues. Its
3:36
conclusion that a prosecution would not be an abuse of
3:39
discretion rings particularly hollow in light of CEOs admirably candid
3:45
concessions that we have raised compelling objections, and that a
3:49
prosecution on these facts would require novel applications of federal law. Indeed,
3:54
even a brief review of CEO's own mission statement reveals
3:58
how in opposite of federal prosit secution is to the
4:01
facts in this case. Importantly, we note that CEO's review
4:05
was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decision
4:09
in Santos and Cuelar, which we believe illuminating as they do.
4:13
The Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law,
4:18
powerfully demonstrates the substantative vulnerability of the usao's unprecedented employment
4:24
of three federal laws. The office's interpretation would never pass
4:28
muster under the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements and should not
4:32
be countenanced. That is all the more true under the
4:36
circumstances where the duly appointed US Attorney O pine that
4:40
in effect, the unitary executive branch was driving this prosecution.
4:45
We now know that is not. So. What I respectfully request,
4:49
and what I hope you will provide, is a truly
4:51
de novo review that is an independent assessment of whether
4:55
federal prosecution of mister Epstein is both necessary and warranted
5:00
view of the legal and evidentiary hurdles that have been identified,
5:04
the existence of a state felony plea and sentence that
5:07
have been advocated by the state Attorney for Palm Beach County,
5:11
and many issues of prosecutorial misconduct and over zealousness that
5:15
had permeated the investigation. I also request that you provide
5:19
us with the opportunity during your review to meet with
5:22
you in person, to answer any questions you may have,
5:25
and to elucidate some of the issues in our submission.
5:30
We believe that an independent review will confirm our strong
5:34
belief that federal prosecutors would be required to stretch the
5:37
plain meaning of each element of the enumerated statutes, and
5:41
then to combine these distorted elements in a tenuous chain
5:44
in order to convict mister Epstein. Indeed, just this week,
5:49
and after two years of federal involvement in this matter,
5:52
assist in United States Attorney redacted reinitiated the Federal grand
5:56
jury investigation indirect contravention of the party's non prosecution agreement,
6:02
and issued yet another subpoena seeking evidence in the case.
6:06
In the subpoena, Ausa Redacted directs redacted to appear on
6:12
July one, two thousand and eight, to give testimony and
6:14
produce documents to FJJ zero seven DASH one zero three,
6:20
West Palm Beach. The attachment to the subpoena seeks documents
6:23
such as photographs, emails, telephone billing information, and contact information
6:28
that relate to mister Epstein, as well as specific other
6:32
people who received protection from federal prosecution as a result
6:36
of mister Epstein having entered into the September twenty fourth,
6:39
two thousand and seven non prosecution agreement with the USAO. Notably,
6:45
the non prosecution agreement contains the following agreed conditions. Further,
6:49
upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with
6:52
the State Attorney's Office, the federal grand jury investigation will
6:56
be suspended and all pending federal grand jury subpoenas will
7:00
be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates
7:03
any terms of the agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to
7:08
withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certain
7:11
grand jury subpoenas. It also guarantees that the person identified
7:17
in the grand jury subpoenas such as redacted and Redacted
7:20
and Redacted and others, will not be prosecuted. The new
7:23
grand jury subpoena clearly violates the non prosecution agreement. Although
7:27
mister Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the
7:31
Department of Justice with the full consent and knowledge of
7:34
the USAO, he has not breached the agreement. The recommencing
7:38
of the grand jury is in violation of the agreement.
7:42
But further, the new investigation, which features wide ranging fishing
7:46
expedition type to search in New York, does not satisfy
7:50
the very essential elements of federal statutes that are lacking.
7:54
Despite the intensity of an over two year investigation in
7:58
the Palm Beach area and evidence of Internet learning inducement
8:03
while using the phone travel for the purpose fraud or coercion,
8:07
the subject of the New York investigation is as lacking
8:10
in the essential basis for a converting a state case
8:13
into a federal case, as is the remainder of the
8:16
Florida investigation. The reaching out to New York to fill
8:19
the void emanating from the failures of the Florida investigation
8:23
compellingly demonstrates the misuse of federal resources in an overzealous,
8:28
over personalized, selective, and an extraordinary attempt to expand federal
8:32
law to where it is never gone. This last ditch
8:36
attempt by misredacted reinforces our belief that the USAO does
8:40
not have facts that, without distortion, would justify a prosecution
8:45
of mister Epstein. In view of the prosecutions often verbalized
8:49
desire to punish mister Epstein, we believe that the prosecution
8:52
summary suffers from critical inaccuracies and aggregates the expected testimonial
8:58
witnesses so as to reach the conclusion of guilt. Our
9:02
contention is reinforced by the fact that key prosecution witness
9:06
have provided evidence and testimony that directly undermines the prosecutions
9:10
misleading and inaccurate summary of the case. Indeed, we now
9:14
have received statements from three of the principal accusers redacted
9:18
through a state criminal deposition, redacted through a federal FBI
9:22
USAO sworn and transcribed interview, and redacted through a defense
9:26
generated sworn transcribed interview each of these witnesses categorically denies
9:31
each essential element that the prosecution will have to prove
9:35
in order to convert this quintessential state law case into
9:39
a federal matter. It thus is especially troubling that the
9:43
USAO has not provided US with the transcript of misredacted
9:47
federal interview, nor the substance of the interviews with misredacted
9:51
or a misredacted, nor any information generated by interviews with
9:55
any of the approximately forty alleged witnesses that the prosecution
9:59
claims it has identified. Because the information provided by these
10:04
women goes directly to the question of mister Epstein's guilt
10:07
or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that
10:11
the US Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information
10:15
about their witnesses prior to a charge or during plea negotiations,
10:19
but we firmly believe that when the government possesses information
10:23
that goes directly to the target's factual guilt or innocence,
10:26
the target should be informed about such heartland exculpatory evidence.
10:32
Most importantly, aside from whether the Department believes Brady obligates
10:36
disclosure to a target of a federal investigation prior to
10:39
the target's formal accusation. No such limit should apply to
10:43
a department review. Accordingly, we request that you go beneath
10:47
the face of any summary provided to you by the
10:50
USAO and instead review the actual witness transcripts and FBI
10:54
three zero two s, which are essential for you to
10:56
be able to make a truly independent assessment of the
11:00
strength and wisdom of any federal prosecution. After careful consideration
11:06
of the record, and as much as it pains me
11:08
to say this, I simply do not believe federal prosecutors
11:11
would have been involved at all in this matter if
11:14
not for mister Epstein's personal wealth and publicity reported ties
11:18
to former President Bill Clinton. A simple Internet search on
11:22
mister Epstein reveals articles and news stories about the former
11:26
President's personal relationship with mister Epstein, explaining and including multi
11:32
page stories in New York Magazine and Vanity Fair. Mister Epstein,
11:36
in fact, only came to public's attention a few years
11:39
ago when he and former President traveled for a week
11:42
to Africa using mister Epstein's airplane, a trip that received
11:46
a great deal of press coverage. I cannot imagine that
11:49
the USAO ever would have contemplated a prosecution in this
11:53
case if mister Epstein lacked this type of notoriety. So
11:57
you see what's happening here right First it was Built
12:00
Clinton who was the enabler, the protector. Then it moved
12:03
on to other people. Donald Trump's one of them. But
12:06
for anybody out there that thinks that Bill Clinton never
12:09
played a huge part, you're crazy, man. He sure did,
12:13
and it was at the time when all of this
12:14
was live. So that's something that definitely deserves more discussion.
12:20
That belief has been reinforced by the significant prosecutorial impropriety
12:25
and the misconduct throughout the course of this matter. While
12:27
we describe the majority of these irregularities in another submission,
12:31
two instances are particularly troubling. First, the USAO authorized the
12:36
public disclosure of specific details of the open investigation to
12:40
the New York Times, including descriptions of the prosecution's theory
12:44
of the case and specific terms of a plea negotiation
12:48
between the parties. Second, Ausa attempted to enrich friends and
12:52
close acquaintances by bringing them business in connection with the matter. Specifically,
12:58
she attempted to appoint a close per personal friend of
13:01
her living boyfriend to serve as an attorney representative for
13:04
the women involved in the case. It also bears mentioning
13:08
that actions taken by Fausa Redacted present an appearance of
13:13
impropriety that gives us cause for concern. Mister Adacted's former
13:17
law partner is currently pursuing a handful of fifty million
13:21
dollar lawsuits against mister Epstein by some of the mess
13:25
messuses imagine. Finally, as you know, mister Epstein and the
13:29
USAO entered into an agreement that deferred prosecution to the state.
13:33
In this regard, I simply note that the manner in
13:36
which this agreement was negotiated contrasts sharply with mister Redacted's
13:40
current representation that the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer
13:45
to the state the length of incarceration. This statement is
13:49
simply not true. Contrary to mister Adacted's assertion, federal prosecutors
13:54
refused to accept what the state believed to be appropriate
13:57
as to mister Epstein's sentence, and instead insisted that mister
14:01
Epstein be required to serve a two year term of imprisonment,
14:05
which they later decreased two eighteen months plus one year
14:09
of house arrested. Federal prosecutors have not only involved themselves
14:13
in what is quintessentially a state matter, but their actions
14:16
have caused a critical appearance of impropriety that raises doubt
14:20
as to their motivation for investigating and prosecuting mister Epstein
14:24
in the first place. At bottom, we appreciate your willingness
14:27
to review the matter with a fresh and independence out
14:30
of eyes. To facilitate your review, I once again request
14:34
the opportunity to make an oral presentation to supplement our
14:38
written submissions, and we will promptly respond to inquiries you
14:42
may have. Yours sincerely, Kenneth W. Starr CC, Deputy Attorney
14:49
General redacted. But we all know what that means, Mark Philippe,
14:54
all right, folks, well there it is just another example
14:57
of how Jeffrey Epstein's team went a of the head
15:00
of alex Acosta and went to Main Justice. And if
15:03
we want to get to the bottom of all of this,
15:06
that's the part of the story that needs to be exposed.
15:10
All of the information that goes with this episode can
15:13
be found in the description box