Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mark Filip’s Role: The Missing Link in the Epstein Cover-Up (Part 1)

Transcript

Mark Filip’s Role: The Missing Link in the Epstein Cover-Up (Part 1) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Epstein Chronicles. So there's a lot of people out there
• 0:06
  that are under the impression that alex Acosta was the
• 0:09
  one who made the decision to enter into the NPA
• 0:13
  with Jeffrey Epstein. But the truth is it wasn't him.
• 0:17
  And today I'm going to provide some receipts that show
• 0:20
  you the conversation between Kenneth Starr, one of Jeffrey Epstein's
• 0:24
  lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis, and of course the same
• 0:27
  Ken Starr that was in charge of the Bill Clinton probe,
• 0:31
  to Mark Philippe, who was the Assistant Attorney General at
• 0:35
  the time the deal was finalized. And I've told you
• 0:38
  from the very beginning that this is the man that
• 0:41
  was responsible for it, and unlike the hucksters and the
• 0:43
  grifters and the snake oil salesman out there, here's the
• 0:46
  receipt May nineteenth, two thousand and eight from Kenneth Starr
• 0:53
  to Mark Phillip. I like to call him Mark Philippe
• 0:55
  because that makes him sound like a bigger douche, but
• 0:57
  we'll call him his real name, Mark Phillip. Dear Judge
• 1:01
  Philip in his confirmation hearings last fall, Judge Mukhesy, who
• 1:06
  is the Attorney General at the time, by the way,
• 1:08
  lifted up the finest traditions of the Department of Justice
• 1:11
  and assuring the United States Senate and the American people
• 1:14
  of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in
• 1:17
  the administration of Justice. Your own confirmation hearings echoed that
• 1:21
  Bedrock determination to assure that the Department conducted itself with
• 1:25
  honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law.
• 1:30
  We come to you in the spirit and respectfully ask
• 1:32
  you to review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially
• 1:36
  state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are
• 1:41
  well aware of the rare instances in which a review
• 1:43
  of this sort is justified, we are confident that the
• 1:46
  circumstances at issue weren't such an examination. Based on our
• 1:50
  collective experiences as well as those of other former senior
• 1:54
  Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, we have
• 1:58
  never before seen a case more of appropriate for oversight
• 2:01
  and review. Thus, while neither of us has previously made
• 2:05
  such a request, we do so now in the recognition
• 2:08
  that both the Department's reputation as well as the due
• 2:11
  process rights of our client are at issue. Recently, the
• 2:14
  Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter
• 2:18
  at the request of US Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however,
• 2:22
  this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of the case.
• 2:26
  Just this past Friday, on May sixteenth, two thousand and eight,
• 2:29
  we received a letter from the head of CEOs informing
• 2:32
  US that CEOs had conducted a review of the case.
• 2:35
  By its own admission, the CEO's review was limited, both
• 2:38
  factually and legally. Part of the self imposed limitation was
• 2:43
  CEO's abstention from addressing our allegations of professional misconduct by
• 2:48
  federal prosecutors, even though such misconduct was, as we contend
• 2:53
  it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations
• 2:57
  being made against mister Epstein by the UNI United States
• 3:00
  Office in Miami. Moreover, CEOs did not assess the terms
• 3:05
  of the deferred prosecution agreement now in effect, nor did
• 3:08
  CEOs review the federal prosecutors in appropriate efforts to implement
• 3:12
  those terms. We detail this point below. By a way
• 3:16
  of background, we were informed by mister Acosta that at
• 3:19
  his request, CEOs would be conducting a review to determine
• 3:23
  whether a federal prosecution was both appropriate and, in his words, fairer.
• 3:27
  That is not what occurred. Instead, CEOs has now acknowledged
• 3:31
  that we had raised many compelling arguments against the USAO
• 3:34
  suggested novel application of federal law in this matter. Even so,
• 3:39
  CEOs concluded in minimalist fashion that we do not see
• 3:43
  anything that says to us categorically that a federal case
• 3:46
  should not be brought and that the US Attorney would
• 3:49
  not be abusing as prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal
• 3:53
  prosecution of mister Epstein, thus delegating back to mister Acosta
• 3:57
  the decision of whether federal prosecution will warranted. Rather than
• 4:01
  assessing whether prosecution would be appropriate, CEOs, using a low
• 4:06
  baseline for its evaluation, determined only that it would not
• 4:09
  be impossible to prove certain allegations made against mister Epstein.
• 4:14
  The CEO's review failed to address the significant problems involving
• 4:18
  the appearance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from
• 4:22
  a federal prosecution of mister Epstein. We respect CEO's conclusion
• 4:27
  that its authority to review misconduct issues was precluded by
• 4:31
  criminal division practice. We further respect CEO's view that it
• 4:35
  understood its mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective
• 4:41
  was to determine whether the USAO would be abusing its
• 4:44
  discretion by bringing a federal prosecution, rather than making its
• 4:48
  own the Novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However,
• 4:54
  we respectfully submit that a full review of all the
• 4:56
  facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department.
• 5:01
  In an effort to inform you of the nature of
• 5:03
  the federal investigation against mister Epstein, we summarize the facts
• 5:07
  and circumstances of the matter below. The two base level
• 5:11
  concerns we hold that are one, federal prosecution of this
• 5:14
  matter is not warranted based on the purely local conduct
• 5:17
  and the unprecedented application of federal statutes to facts such
• 5:21
  as these, And two, the actions of federal authorities are
• 5:25
  both highly questionable and give rise to an appearance of
• 5:28
  substantial impropriety. The issues that we have raised, but which
• 5:32
  have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department
• 5:35
  are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct.
• 5:39
  These issues instead affect the appearance and administration of criminal
• 5:43
  justice with profound consequence beyond the resolution in the matter
• 5:47
  at hand. In a precedent shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein
• 5:51
  that raises important policy questions and serious issues as to
• 5:55
  the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law, the USAO
• 5:59
  and Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds
• 6:03
  of precedent and reason. Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts
• 6:08
  and ways that raise fundamental questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps
• 6:13
  most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of
• 6:16
  deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantative federal criminal law
• 6:21
  with proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears
• 6:25
  intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in southern
• 6:29
  Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved.
• 6:33
  Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case
• 6:37
  to a New York Times reporter. The immediate result of
• 6:40
  this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an onslaught of civil lawsuits,
• 6:45
  all save one brought by the first assistants, former boutique
• 6:48
  law firm in Miami. The facts in this case all
• 6:52
  revolver around the classic state crime of solicitation of prostitution.
• 6:56
  The State Attorney's Office in Palm Beach County had conducted
• 6:59
  a diligent invstigation, convened a grand jury that returned an indictment,
• 7:03
  and made a final determination about how to proceed. That's
• 7:07
  where in our federal Republic this matter should rest. Mister
• 7:10
  Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue
• 7:14
  of his conduct, and the only reason the state has
• 7:17
  not resolved the matter is that federal prosecutors in Miami
• 7:20
  have continued to insist that we mister Epstein's council approach
• 7:24
  and demand from the State Attorney's office a harsher charge
• 7:28
  and a more severe punishment than that office believes are
• 7:31
  appropriate under the circumstances. Yet, despite the usao's refusal to
• 7:36
  allow the state to resolve the matter on the terms
• 7:38
  the state is determined or appropriate, the USAO has not
• 7:42
  made any attempt to coordinate its effort with the state.
• 7:45
  In fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement would
• 7:49
  be conditioned on mister Epstein persuading the state to seek
• 7:52
  a criminal punishment unlike that imposed on other defendants within
• 7:56
  the jurisdiction of the state Attorney for a similar conduct.
• 7:59
  From the inception of the usao's involvement in the case,
• 8:02
  which at the end of the day, is a case
• 8:05
  about solicitation a prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County,
• 8:09
  we have asked ourselves why the Department of Justice is involved. Regrettably,
• 8:14
  we're unable to suggest any appropriate basis for the Department's involvement.
• 8:18
  Mister Epstein has no criminal history whatsoever. Also, mister Epstein
• 8:22
  has never been the subject of general media interest until
• 8:25
  a few years ago, after it was widely perceived by
• 8:28
  the public that he was a close friend of former
• 8:30
  President Bill Clinton. The conduct that issue is simply not
• 8:34
  within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies outside the
• 8:37
  heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified
• 8:41
  by prosecutors. These statutes are intended to target crimes of
• 8:45
  truly national and international scope. Specifically, fifteen ninety one was
• 8:50
  enacted to combat human trafficking. Section twenty four to twenty
• 8:53
  two is aimed at sexual predation of minors through the Internet,
• 8:57
  and Section twenty four to twenty three with sex tourism.
• 9:01
  The nature of these crimes results in multi jurisdictional problems
• 9:05
  that state and local authorities cannot effectively confront on their own. However,
• 9:10
  mister Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and thus
• 9:13
  does not implicate federal involvement. After researching every reported case
• 9:18
  brought under US Code eighteen, section fifteen ninety one, twenty
• 9:22
  four to twenty two B, and twenty four to twenty
• 9:24
  three B, we found that not a single case involves
• 9:27
  facts or a scenario similar to the situation at hand.
• 9:31
  Our review of each precedent reflects that there have been
• 9:34
  no reported prosecutions under section fifteen ninety one of a
• 9:38
  john whose conduct with a minor lacked force, coercion, or fraud,
• 9:43
  and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There
• 9:46
  have likewise been no case under section twenty four to
• 9:49
  twenty two B a crime of communication where there was
• 9:52
  no use of the Internet, and where the content of
• 9:55
  phone communication did not contain any inducing or enticing of
• 9:59
  a minor to have a legal sexual activity as expressly
• 10:02
  required by the language of the statute. Furthermore, the government's
• 10:06
  contention that the routine habit can fill the factual and
• 10:09
  legal void created by the lack of evidence that such
• 10:12
  communication ever occurred. Sets this case apart from every reported
• 10:16
  case brought under Section twenty four to twenty two B. Lastly,
• 10:21
  there are no reported cases the violation of Section twenty
• 10:24
  four to twenty three B of a person whose dominant
• 10:27
  purpose in traveling was merely to go to his own home.
• 10:30
  All right, folk, who're going to wrap up episode one
• 10:32
  right here, and in the next episode, we're going to
• 10:34
  pick up where we left off. All of the information
• 10:36
  that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 10:39
  description box.