Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Why Won't The DOJ Tell Us Who Really Signed Off On The Epstein Deal? (6/8/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Why Won't The DOJ Tell Us Who Really Signed Off On The Epstein Deal? (6/8/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from Courtney
0:05
Wilde's attorneys and the United States government, and during that
0:11
time the point was made by Courtney Wilde's attorney, Paul
0:17
Cassel that the victim's Rights agreement certainly wasn't abided by,
0:22
and it seemed like the government was making the point that, well,
0:27
we agree that we treated these girls absolutely terribly. Not
0:32
only do we agree that we treated them terribly, we
0:35
also want to apologize for it the inferral that these
0:42
girls were prostitutes, because that's not the case. So for
0:46
those of you who were pining about, oh, these girls
0:49
were just prostitutes, well put that in your pipe and
0:52
smoke it, because these girls were not prostitutes. They were
0:56
being trafficked by this dude. And that whole entire prostitution
1:02
argument was cooked up by mister I kept my underpants on.
1:07
Dershowitz left Kowitz, Star and the rest of Jeffrey Epstein's
1:12
legal team the first time around. So the government is
1:17
not saying that they weren't at fault here. They're not
1:20
saying that they didn't step out of line. What they're
1:24
saying is, well, it's just a technicality though, and even
1:27
though we know that we stepped out of line, it's
1:30
a bad precedent for us to set if you know,
1:33
we don't try and cover our ass here. That's pretty
1:37
much what it seems like. And that's pretty much what
1:40
I got out of the hearing this morning while I
1:44
was tuning in, and there were a couple of the
1:48
judges who I thought were pretty ridiculous, and one of
1:53
them was a brasher, the other one was Prior, and
2:00
the other judge, the third judge's name was Wilson, I believe,
2:05
and they were They didn't seem receptive at all, pretty
2:10
much to Courtney Wilde's arguments, and Judge Lagoya she didn't
2:16
seem too receptive either, but I couldn't really get a
2:19
feel for her. As for the other judges, well, you
2:23
had the one guy who's ninety one. He couldn't even
2:26
figure out how to unmute his computer, never mind sitting
2:31
for a case like this. But that's a different conversation,
2:33
I guess. And Frank Hall was pretty staunch in her
2:39
support once again of Courtney Wilde and the survivors, and
2:45
as far as the rest of those judges, I couldn't
2:47
really get a feel one way or the other. And
2:50
I kind of had the same feeling after the Second
2:53
Circuit Court of Appeals and they're hearing. When it came
2:58
to the deposition, it kind of it seemed like they
3:01
were leaning towards keeping the document sealed at some points,
3:06
and then some of them seem like they wanted them unsealed,
3:09
and then obviously at the end of the day they
3:12
ended up being unsealed. So, like I said earlier, I'm
3:16
certainly no you know, specialist when it comes to this stuff,
3:22
or an expert. I don't sit around watching court cases
3:25
all the time and watching how they progress. This is
3:28
my first time doing this, my first time digging into
3:31
something like this. But I will say this that say
3:37
that they decide that due to the technicality, they keep
3:41
the prosecution agreement in place, well, that just means that
3:46
for those specific crimes that were committed in Florida allegedly
3:51
that they're protected from those crimes. That does not mean
3:55
that the government can't set up a RICO like they're
4:01
doing right now with Maxwell, we would hope, or a
4:03
case like they're doing with Maxwell in New York. Because
4:06
we know these crimes were committed in multiple states. And
4:11
they could go about it that way as well. Getting
4:14
rid of the NPA would just streamline everything and make
4:17
it so much quicker as as opposed to dragging it
4:22
out and making it become another long protracted legal fight,
4:27
because that's definitely what's getting set up. And if the
4:30
NPA is withheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
4:35
then the next step, I would guess, is to petition
4:41
the Supreme Court to hear the case and move try
4:45
and move forward that way. But at the same time,
4:48
you would hope that the criminal portion of this investigation
4:51
that's already ongoing would expand their investigation that is already
4:56
ongoing at the SDNY, and it would incl these co
5:00
conspirators because from the conversation that was had by the
5:05
prosecutor today, nobody is disputing that this was a criminal
5:10
conspiracy being engaged in by these people around Jeffrey Epstein,
5:15
and of course Jeffrey Epstein himself. I don't think that's
5:18
even in dispute anymore. So the question becomes when is
5:25
the next step going to be kicked in? When are
5:29
some of these unsealed indictments going to be made public,
5:33
and when are some of these co conspirators going to
5:35
be arrested because remember, like I just said, there is
5:39
sufficient circumstantial evidence enough for probable cause that these people
5:46
were involved with the whole entire criminal enterprise, not just
5:51
what occurred in Florida. So the NPA would only protect
5:56
them from what Jeffrey Epstein was already try down there
6:01
in Florida, right, it doesn't protect them from new charges.
6:06
So while the NPA will go a long way to
6:10
streamline all of this, even if the Eleventh Circuit Court
6:14
decides to show their you know, their poor judgment and
6:23
keep it active and rule with the government over Courtney,
6:27
that that isn't the end of it, right, There is
6:31
still a path for prosecutions here. But I think that
6:37
it goes a long way to get rid of the
6:40
non prosecution agreement. It will go a long way to
6:43
restore some faith, even just if it's a little bit
6:47
that some of these rights can be wronged. None of
6:49
this should be written in stone. If there was a
6:52
mistake by the government, then it needs to be addressed,
6:55
and it needs to be fixed, and the public should
6:58
be made aware of it. It shouldn't be this nonsensical
7:01
bs we see here, This dance around the fire. This
7:06
is the main reason I started investigating this case in
7:10
the first place, because of the government misconduct. I had
7:14
no idea the vastness of all of it, obviously, but
7:19
the government misconduct angle and the way that the Department
7:23
of just Us conducted themselves was one of the major
7:27
factors that got me interested in this case in the
7:29
first place. So to see it all unfold the way
7:35
it's unfolding, and to see some of these judges, it's
7:39
just it just proves, at least to me, that the
7:45
whole entire system, for the most part, is rotted from
7:48
the inside out. And to be honest with you, I
7:52
don't have any answers on how to fix that, folks,
7:55
I really don't, you know. I'm just as perplexed as
7:58
everybody else have the answers. I won't make pretend I do.
8:03
But I think it goes a long way to hold
8:07
people accountable, even if there are people in positions of
8:11
power in the government, even if they're judges. It shouldn't matter.
8:15
If you were in the wrong, then you should be
8:18
sanctioned or fired or whatever it may be, and redress
8:22
should be had for those who were wronged and the
8:26
American people as a whole tonight. Our article is from
8:32
politico dot com. The headline Department of Justice prosecutor ered
8:38
by promising to confer with Jeffrey Epstein survivors. This article
8:45
was authored by Josh Gerstein, the rank and file prosecutor,
8:52
her name is Steinberg handling the federal criminal and excuse me,
8:57
the rank and file prosecutor handing in the federal criminal
9:01
investigation more than a decade ago. That would be Villa
9:04
Fauna into sex trafficking by financier pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Heired
9:10
by telling survivors they had legal rights to weigh in
9:14
on the outcome of the inquiry. A Justice Department attorney
9:18
told a federal court Thursday, So basically what they want
9:23
us to believe is it's all Villa Fauna's fault. Right now,
9:27
I'm certainly not a champion of Villa Fauna, as you
9:29
all know, but I do think she is a lot
9:32
less scummy than the rest of these guys, and it's
9:35
certainly not her fault. According to the amicus brief that
9:39
was filed by the people who wrote the law, Villa
9:42
Fauna interpreted it correctly and the prosecutors and the federal
9:47
government did not. Now again, I'm not a lawyer, but
9:51
that's the way I see it. So I think it's
9:55
funny that they would come out and they'd try and
9:58
lambasted her and say that she made the mistake in
10:02
telling the survivors that they'd confer. So again, it's like
10:06
the government, just like the so called elite, never wants
10:09
to take responsibility when they're wrong. In video arguments to
10:16
the full bench of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
10:20
Department of Justice attorney Jill Steinberg said that prosecutor Marie
10:25
Villafauna was trying to be compassionate towards the survivors, but
10:29
the consultation she guaranteed them wasn't actually required by law.
10:34
And well, we all know that the federal officers and
10:37
cops are notorious for lying to you anyway, so why
10:42
would we expect any different here. Although with the Victim's
10:47
Rights Act, you would think that these gals or anyone
10:51
who is abused would be afforded more rights than normal
10:57
when it comes to this sort of thing. It's just
10:59
like if there's a hate crime, right, there are stiffer
11:02
penalties and there must be redress for something like this.
11:07
You know, people want to talk about President, how would
11:09
it affect further, uh you future rulings and shit to
11:13
get rid of this NPA? And I'd counter with, how
11:18
would it affect the future in general? If this NPA
11:22
is left to stand, what sort of precedent does that set?
11:27
It is such a stain and a black eye on
11:30
the whole entire Department of Justice, not just in Florida,
11:36
not just a Costa, but the whole entire Department of
11:40
Justice and the federal government. This should not be allowed
11:45
to stand. Prosecutors ultimately held back on notifying survivors after
11:53
Epstein's High Power Defense Team vigorously objected. See, and that's
11:58
the thing as well. If they were just holding back
12:01
because they didn't see it fit into the framework of
12:04
the law, then they'd have a legitimate excuse, probably right,
12:08
an argument where you might roll your eyes, but you're like,
12:11
all right, at least it's not a technicality. At least
12:14
these guys have some sort of defensible position. But this
12:20
nonsense about the High Power Defense Team and how they
12:25
vigorously objected, that's just a dog whistle for them strong
12:31
arming the prosecutors. How do a team of lawyers strong
12:35
arm United States federal prosecutors into giving Jeffrey Epstein this
12:40
sort of deal. How is that even possible. That's a
12:44
question that needs to be answered. Still, there is no
12:49
legitimate answer for that question. In my opinion, they should
12:54
never I don't care how high profile the lawyers are.
12:57
They should never be able to pressure and strong arm
13:01
federal prosecutors who have the full weight of the United
13:06
States government behind them. What is it like a ninety
13:10
seven percent success rate for the federal government in federal
13:14
court when it goes to trial. So I don't know
13:19
why these guys would be getting strong armed unless, of course,
13:22
well someonelike Mukasey or is chief deputy gave that order
13:30
then of course, well yeah, I could see it then,
13:32
But just to be strong armed, I don't see that happening.
13:36
I'm sorry. She wanted to give as broad protection to
13:42
the survivors as possible, and unfortunately, in doing so, I
13:46
think people might have felt misled. Steinberg told the appeals
13:49
court in terms of what their requirements are of the
13:53
Crime Victim's Rights Act, that never changed. It's sort of
13:56
a learning lesson for people in my position to be
13:59
careful about what it is what we say, and distinguish
14:03
between policy and what we want to do is good
14:06
human beings. We can maybe have it turned against us.
14:10
Oh yeah, but the federal government. Yeah, that's that's the Uh,
14:14
that's the the the the idea. The federal government's the
14:17
victim here. Huh. The federal government's been victimized by the law. Huh.
14:23
Give me an absolute break, And no it's not. This
14:25
ain't some learning uh, some teachable moment. Okay, you're not
14:30
learning on the fly here, learning on the job here
14:33
talking about people's lives both ways, those accused and those
14:38
doing the accusing. So you sons of bitches, better get
14:41
your act together. You better get your ducks in a row,
14:46
because the fact that this has been allowed to stand
14:51
for this long is beyond me. Tom Courtney Wilde sued
15:01
the federal government in two thousand and eight in a
15:03
bid to dissolve the complex, aggressively negotiated deal that resulted
15:08
in Epstein pleading guilty to two prostitution related felonies in
15:13
state court in exchange for a guarantee of no federal
15:16
prosecution over his alleged procurement of dozens of underage girls
15:22
for sex acts. Wild suit contended that the federal non
15:27
prosecution agreement was approved without the conferral required by the
15:32
two thousand and four Victims' Rights Statute. Look, he is
15:38
not wrong. That's what this law was put onto the
15:41
books for. And the lawmakers finally put a law on
15:45
the books that we can all get down with, a
15:48
law that actually makes some sense. And these assholes are
15:51
still finding loopholes, still finding technicalities, even when those very
15:57
same people, the ones who wrote the law, okay, come
16:01
out file an ambaicust brief and say that the interpretation
16:05
by the federal government is wrong. How does any of
16:09
that jive? How does any of that make sense? For years,
16:17
little attention was paid to her suit and the grievance
16:20
of some survivors over the treatment of the wealthy and
16:23
well connected Epstein, who served thirteen months in county jail
16:27
and was allowed to visit his office on most days. However,
16:31
public outrage intensified last year after a federal judge in
16:35
West Palm Beach ruled that prosecutors violated the victim's Rights
16:39
law in their handling of Epstein, and that they deliberately
16:42
misled survivors about the status of negotiations with his tenacious attorneys.
16:49
And if he didn't die, this NPA would have been overturned.
16:54
And that's another thing that you should keep in mind,
16:57
all right, If he was still alive, this would have
17:01
this would have been overturned already. So while again I
17:06
am more than willing to believe that he committed suicide
17:08
if the evidence is presented, there sure are a lot
17:12
of reasons that the alternative could be true as well.
17:21
Among those skewered by the ruling was Alex Acosta, who
17:25
served as the chief federal prosecutor in South Florida at
17:28
the time the deal was cut and was serving as
17:31
President Donald Trump's labor secretary. Acosta whether that storm, but
17:36
resigned in July twenty nineteen after federal prosecutors in New
17:41
York indict at Epstein on sex trafficking charges dating back
17:45
to the two thousands. And again, while I completely agree
17:50
that Acosta is a scumbag, the buck shouldn't have stopped there.
17:56
The tenaciousness should have continued. Julie Brown and the Mia
18:00
Ammy Harald should have been kicking in Mukasey's door as well.
18:06
Nobody like Acosta makes these decisions in a vacuum on
18:10
their own, of their own will. All right. They might
18:13
have the idea and they might throw it up the
18:15
latter the chain of command and say, hey, this is
18:18
what I'm thinking, but the final decision isn't being made
18:22
by acosta. Epstein was denied bell in that case and
18:31
died while housed at a federal jail in Manhattan. Officials
18:34
pronounced the death a suicide. One of Epstein's longtime companions,
18:40
co conspirator, all around scusbag, fellow child abuser, and bipedal serpent,
18:46
Guilain Maxwell, was arrested in July of this year on
18:49
charges that she aided Epstein's abuse. She is also being
18:54
held without ball. In April, a three judge panel of
18:58
the Eleventh Circuit rule two to one that survivors could
19:02
not enforce their rights where no federal prosecution has been filed.
19:08
So again, it's the technicality of it, right, Oh, there's
19:10
no federal prosecution that's been filed here. Well, yeah, it
19:14
was about to be filed, but the state intervened for
19:18
this specific purpose. I would guess to circumvent this whole
19:22
entire process, because that's what they have done. The whole
19:28
entire time, and they've been aided and abetted by scuzbags
19:32
in the court. However, lawyers for a while protested that ruling,
19:39
and the court later agreed to rehear her case, and
19:42
Bonk Steinberg, who is based in the Atlanta US Attorney's Office,
19:47
was brought in after the federal judge's ruling that Acosta's
19:51
office broke the law in its handling of the Epstein inquiry.
19:56
So the federal judges already ruled that they broke the
19:59
law in the way they handled this, all right, So
20:03
now we're arguing over technicalities. It's already been established that
20:07
they broke the law. But you know, again, a lot
20:12
of these judges are fickle, shall we say. Steiberg never
20:19
mentioned Villa Fauna by name during the arguments Tuesday. After
20:23
handling sex abuse in trafficking cases in Florida for over
20:27
a decade, Villa Fauna quit her job last year and
20:30
joined another federal agency. The judges who were at arguments
20:35
for about seventy minutes on Thursday, did not explicitly declare
20:39
their positions on the appeal, but several seem to either
20:42
disagree with wild lawyers reading of the law or Harbor
20:46
fears about the potential fallout of giving survivors an enforceable
20:51
right to consult with prosecutors when a deal has arrived
20:54
at the results at that result in a suspect that
20:58
is suspected not being prosecuted. So it's all about President President, right.
21:05
They're worried about what this could foretell in the future
21:09
and what bearing this will have on cases in the future.
21:13
And like I said earlier, I contend that I'm worried
21:16
about the now. What kind of impact is this going
21:20
to have now? And what kind of impact is this
21:22
going to have on other cases like this moving forward.
21:26
It's time to set the standard here, folks. Judge Charles
21:32
Wilson noted that such deals are often cut when someone
21:36
agrees to testify against others or to provide sensitive information,
21:40
often at the risk of considerable danger to themselves. Mister
21:45
Epstein was a pretty bad guy, But you're asking the
21:47
court to apply precedent in future cases that may not
21:52
be as bad as this one, Wilson told Paul Cassel,
21:55
a law professor and retired federal judge representing wild Look,
22:02
I get it right. Precedent is important. It's something that
22:05
has to be thought about. But what about the here
22:08
and now? What about the egregious treatment that Courtney Wilde
22:13
and these other survivors have received at the hands of
22:16
the federal government, at the hands of people that at
22:19
the end of the day we employ as citizens. It
22:23
doesn't sit well with me, and it's a shame that
22:27
these judges rule their courtrooms like many fiefdoms. Cassell said
22:34
the Crime Victims' Rights Act doesn't guarantee a consultation in
22:37
all circumstances, but only where it would be reasonable, and
22:41
he said it wouldn't be reasonable in that kind of scenario.
22:45
But other judges raised questions about how workable that distinction
22:49
would be and whether district court judges were prepared to
22:53
take on litigation where private parties are examining the agreements
22:57
reached with fearful government witnesses. Oh that, I think that's
23:02
a bit of fear mongering. I think that is a
23:04
bit of fear mongering on the part of the court.
23:08
I think that there shouldn't be just one blanketed way
23:11
things are gone about. I think that each circumstance is unique,
23:17
and the information of each circumstance should play into how
23:22
it's addressed, Cassell said that concern was fairly remote, given
23:28
that Wilde's case was the only one of its kind
23:31
since the CVRA has been on the books. This is
23:35
once in a sixteen years situation, he said. And he's
23:39
not wrong about that, right. It's not like these kinds
23:41
of cases are popping up every day and this is
23:43
going to be a huge burden and it's going to
23:46
set terrible precedent, right, because that's not the case in
23:49
my opinion. But again, I'm not a lawyer, and I
23:55
don't know the ins and the outs of these laws
24:00
the way that these people do. So I'm just speaking
24:04
as someone sitting on the sidelines, right, my opinion and
24:07
the way I am interpreting what's going on. Cassell also
24:13
opened his arguments Thursday by pointing to an amicust brief
24:17
filed by Senator Dianne Feinstein and former Senators John Kyle
24:21
and Orrin Hatch, affirming that the two thousand and four
24:24
law was intend intended to apply even before a case
24:30
went to court. So these are again, these are the
24:34
people that wrote the laws, but these judges feel like
24:37
it's their job to interpret them. And I don't know
24:43
control things from the bench, because you would think that
24:47
the people who actually the judge's job is to enforce
24:52
the law, right, it's their job to make sure that
24:56
they're following the Constitution and the guidelines of the court.
25:01
And if these people who wrote this law are saying
25:04
that it was indeed intended to be used even before
25:09
a case went to court, then I think that that
25:11
should have some sway, right, especially considering this isn't some
25:15
kind of common law that we run into all the time.
25:21
This is a once in a sixteen year span, as
25:23
mister Cassell said. As the judges drilled down on fine
25:28
points in the law, Cassell cautioned them against a hypertechnical reading.
25:33
This act was designed to be interpreted by crime victims,
25:36
most of whom would lack legal counsel, he said. Sterling
25:40
said the door was opened to survivors pursuing a complaint
25:43
at the Justice Department if they felt snubbed by prosecutors,
25:47
but that survivors don't have a right to get relief
25:50
from a court in cases that don't result in prosecution.
25:55
And that's bs by mister Sterling. Okay, that wasn't a
26:00
very sterling opinion, sir, not a very hot take. What
26:07
is the whole point of having a court system set
26:09
up if it's not going to protect people from the
26:13
government and from the most powerful amongst us. So is
26:18
there no redress? Is that what you want to tell
26:22
two hundred three hundred million plus people that they have
26:26
no redress and that the government and the Department of
26:30
Justice can't even protect our children from these sorts of monsters,
26:34
all based on a technicality. That's the route you want
26:37
to go after what you have just seen in the
26:39
streets of America and around the world for the last
26:42
six months. It's a bold move, Cotton, but Cassell said
26:51
that wouldn't do much for wild That's a meaningless remedy
26:54
because all of the architects of this non prosecution agreement
26:57
have left government employment, he said, And that's for sure.
27:01
What are they supposed to do or are they going
27:03
to get a letter dressing them down? Oh you were bad,
27:09
you made bad decisions. That's what we already got from
27:12
the garbage ass internal Department of Justice investigation that they
27:16
so called kicked into gear. Judge Frank Hull, who was
27:23
the dissenter from the April Appeals Court, appeared to be
27:26
the most vigorous defender of Wild's position on Thursday the
27:30
Appeals Court could avoid squaring up to the key question
27:33
in the case by resolving it on oh, what do
27:36
you know? Technical grounds? What do you have technical grounds?
27:39
It's always technical grounds and loopholes and garbage like that.
27:43
So sick of it. Wild is now conferred with prosecutors
27:48
in New York about the case there. So Wilson suggested
27:51
Thursday that the dispute before them might be moot. Of course,
27:56
he did, they have better things to do, don't you
27:59
know they want to go play golf or whatever it
28:01
is these sort of people do. They want to go
28:03
throw some drug da some people that were in possession
28:07
of drugs into prison for one hundred and seventy five years.
28:11
Forget about sex traffickers or their criminal co conspirators. Forget
28:14
about all of that. We got other things to do.
28:17
We got to go and act the Patriot Act, and
28:20
we have to go make sure we kick indoors and
28:23
prosecute the war on drugs and all the other stupid
28:26
bullshit they gasl at us with while ignoring all of
28:29
the most important shit going on around us. But Cassell
28:35
insisted it was not because the non prosecution agreement still
28:38
appears to rule out prosecuting several of f Epstein's associates
28:43
on some charges stemming from conduct in South Florida. Miss
28:47
Wilde never had a chance to describe what those co
28:50
conspirators had done to her, he said. And that's the
28:55
big problem for me right there, the fact that this
28:58
grand jury in Florida only heard from one accuser, and
29:05
the lengths that they went to destroy her credibility and
29:08
the credibility of these other girls by calling them prostitutes
29:12
and shit. It is just unseemly that Courtney Wilde has
29:18
never been given the chance to confront her her those
29:23
that she accuses in a court of law. That's not
29:29
how this is supposed to work. This system is completely
29:35
broken in my opinion. And again I don't have all
29:38
the answers on how to fix it, but we can't
29:41
stay the course, right? How long are you going to yell?
29:44
Stay the course? Stay the course? As an island and
29:50
reef comes into view me, I think that it's time
29:57
to turn the ship, folks. I think it's time for
29:59
a new I think it's time we try something different.
30:03
And I think that these people like Jeffrey Epstein his associates.
30:13
A lot of these lawyers have been living in a
30:17
separate reality from actual reality for far too long, and
30:24
I think that when they crash down from their high horse,
30:29
it's gonna be rather painful for them. If you'd like
30:33
to contact me, you can do that at Bobby Kapuci
30:35
at ProtonMail dot com. That's Bo Bby c ap you
30:40
Cci at ProtonMail dot com. You can also find me
30:45
on Twitter at Bobby Underscore c ap u Cci. All
30:51
of the links that go at this episode can be
30:53
found in the description box. All right, everybody, I'll be
30:57
back tomorrow. What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode
31:00
of the Epstein Chronicles. So there's a lot of people
31:04
out there that are under the impression that Alex Acosta
31:07
was the one who made the decision to enter into
31:10
the NPA with Jeffrey Epstein. But the truth is it
31:14
wasn't him. And today I'm going to provide some receipts
31:18
that show you the conversation between Kenneth Starr, one of
31:21
Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis, and of course
31:25
the same Ken Starr that was in charge of the
31:28
Bill Clinton probe to Mark Philippe, who was the Assistant
31:32
Attorney General at the time the deal was finalized. And
31:35
I've told you from the very beginning that this is
31:38
the man that was responsible for it. And unlike the
31:41
hucksters and the grifters and the snake oil salesman out there,
31:44
here's the receipt May nineteenth, two thousand and eight from
31:50
Kenneth Starr to Mark Phillip. I like to call him
31:53
Mark Philippe because that makes him sound like a bigger douche,
31:55
but we'll call him his real name, Mark Phillip. Jud
32:00
Philip in his confirmation hearings last fall, Judge Mukhesy, who
32:04
is the Attorney General at the time, by the way,
32:06
lifted up the finest traditions of the Department of Justice
32:09
and assuring the United States Senate and the American people
32:12
of his solemn intent to ensure fairness and integrity in
32:15
the administration of Justice. Your own confirmation hearings echoed that
32:19
bedrock determination to assure that the Department conducted itself with
32:23
honor and integrity, especially in the enforcement of federal criminal law.
32:28
We come to you in the spirit and respectfully ask
32:31
you to review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially
32:35
state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are
32:39
well aware of the rare instances in which a review
32:42
of this sort is justified, we are confident that the
32:44
circumstances at issue weren't such an examination. Based on our
32:49
collective experiences as well as those of other former senior
32:52
Justice Department officials whose advice we have sought, we have
32:56
never before seen a case more appropriate for oversight and review. Thus,
33:01
while neither of us has previously made such a request,
33:04
we do so now in the recognition that both the
33:07
Department's reputation as well as the due process rights of
33:10
our client are at issue. Recently, the Criminal Division concluded
33:14
a very limited review of this matter at the request
33:17
of US Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately
33:21
excluded many important aspects of the case. Just this past Friday,
33:25
on May sixteenth, two thousand and eight, we received a
33:28
letter from the head of CEOs informing US that CEOs
33:32
had conducted a review of the case. By its own admission,
33:35
the CEO's review was limited, both factually and legally. Part
33:40
of the self imposed limitation was CEO's abstention from addressing
33:44
our allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors, even though
33:49
such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined
33:53
with the credibility of the accusations being made against mister
33:57
Epstein by the United States Office in Miaci. Moreover, CEOs
34:02
did not assess the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement
34:05
now in effect, nor did CEOs review the federal prosecutors
34:09
in appropriate efforts to implement those terms. We detail this
34:12
point below. By a way of background, we were informed
34:16
by mister Acosta that, at his request, CEOs would be
34:19
conducting a review to determine whether a federal prosecution was
34:22
both appropriate and, in his words, fairer. That is not
34:26
what occurred. Instead, CEOs has now acknowledged that we had
34:30
raised many compelling arguments against the USAO suggested novel application
34:35
of federal law in this matter. Even so, CEOs concluded
34:39
in minimalist fashion that we do not see anything that
34:42
says to us categorically that a federal case should not
34:45
be brought and that the US Attorney would not be
34:47
abusing as prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of
34:52
mister Epstein, thus delegating back to mister Acosta the decision
34:56
of whether federal prosecution was warranted. Rather than assessing whether
35:01
prosecution would be appropriate, CEOs, using a low baseline for
35:05
its evaluation, determined only that it would not be impossible
35:08
to prove certain allegations made against mister Epstein. The CEO's
35:13
review failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance
35:17
of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a federal
35:21
prosecution of mister Epstein. We respect CEO's conclusion that its
35:26
authority to review misconduct issues was precluded by criminal division practice.
35:31
We further respect CEO's view that it understood its mission
35:35
as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine
35:40
whether the USAO would be abusing its discretion by bringing
35:44
a federal prosecution, rather than making its own the Novo
35:47
recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However, we
35:52
respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts
35:55
is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department
36:00
in an effort to inform you of the nature of
36:01
the federal investigation against mister Epstein, we summarize the facts
36:05
and circumstances of the matter below. The two base level
36:10
concerns we hold that are one, federal prosecution of this
36:12
matter is not warranted based on the purely local conduct
36:16
and the unprecedented application of federal statutes to facts such
36:20
as these, And two, the actions of federal authorities are
36:23
both highly questionable and give rise to an appearance of
36:26
substantial impropriety. The issues that we have raised, but which
36:30
have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department
36:34
are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct.
36:38
These issues instead affect the appearance and administration of criminal
36:42
justice with profound consequence beyond the resolution in the matter
36:46
at hand. In a precedent shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein
36:50
that raises important policy questions and serious issues as to
36:53
the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law, the USAO
36:57
in Miami is considering extended fas federal law. Beyond the
37:01
bounds of precedent and reason, Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying
37:06
facts and ways that raise fundamental questions of basic professionalism.
37:11
Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami as a condition
37:14
of deferring prosecution required a commingling of substantative federal criminal
37:19
law with proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that
37:22
appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in
37:27
southern Florida with personal relationships to some of the prosecutors involved.
37:31
Federal prosecutors then leaked highly sensitive information about the case
37:35
to a New York Times reporter. The immediate result of
37:39
this confluence of extraordinary circumstances is an onslaught of civil lawsuits,
37:43
all save one brought by the first assistants, former boutique
37:47
law firm in Miami. The facts in this case all
37:50
revolver around the classic state crime of solicitation of prostitution.
37:54
The State Attorney's office in Palm Beach County had conducted
37:57
a diligent investigation, convened the grand injury that returned an indictment,
38:02
and made a final determination about how to proceed. That's
38:05
where in our federal Republic this matter should rest. Mister
38:09
Epstein faces a felony conviction in state court by virtue
38:12
of his conduct, and the only reason the state has
38:15
not resolved the matter is that federal prosecutors in Miami
38:19
have continued to insist that we mister Epstein's council approach
38:23
in demand from the State Attorney's office a harsher charge
38:26
and a more severe punishment than that office believes are
38:29
appropriate under the circumstances. Yet, despite the usao's refusal to
38:34
allow the state to resolve the matter on the terms
38:37
the state is determined or appropriate, the USAO has not
38:40
made any attempt to coordinate its effort with the state.
38:44
In fact, the USAO mandated that any federal agreement would
38:47
be conditioned on mister Epstein persuading the state to seek
38:50
a criminal punishment unlike that imposed on other defendants within
38:54
the jurisdiction of the State Attorney for a similar conduct.
38:57
From the inception of the usao's involved in the case,
39:01
which at the end of the day, is a case
39:03
about solicitation a prostitution within the confines of Palm Beach County,
39:08
we have asked ourselves why the Department of Justice is involved. Regrettably,
39:12
we're unable to suggest any appropriate basis for the Department's involvement.
39:16
Mister Epstein has no criminal history whatsoever. Also, mister Epstein
39:20
has never been the subject of general media interest until
39:23
a few years ago, after it was widely perceived by
39:26
the public that he was a close friend of former
39:29
President Bill Clinton. The conduct that issue is simply not
39:32
within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies outside the
39:35
heartland of the three federal statutes that have been identified
39:39
by prosecutors. These statutes are intended to target crimes of
39:44
truly national and international scope. Specifically, fifteen ninety one was
39:48
enacted to combat human trafficking, Section twenty four to twenty
39:51
two is aimed at sexual predation of minors through the Internet,
39:55
and section twenty four to twenty three deals with sex tourism.
40:00
The nature of these crimes results in multi jurisdictional problems
40:04
that state and local authorities cannot effectively confront on their own. However,
40:08
mister Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature and thus
40:12
does not implicate federal involvement. After researching every reported case
40:16
brought under US Code eighteen, Section fifteen ninety one, twenty
40:20
four to twenty two B, and twenty four to twenty
40:22
three B, we found that not a single case involves
40:26
facts or a scenario similar to the situation at hand.
40:30
Our review of each precedent reflects that there have been
40:33
no reported prosecutions under section fifteen ninety one of a
40:37
john whose conduct with a minor lacked force, coercion, or fraud,
40:41
and who was not profiting from commercial sexual trafficking. There
40:44
have likewise been no case under Section twenty four to
40:47
twenty two B a crime of communication where there was
40:50
no use of the Internet and where the content of
40:53
phone communication did not contain any inducing or enticing of
40:57
a minor to have a legal sexual activity, as expressly
41:01
required by the language of the statute. Furthermore, the government's
41:04
contention that the routine habit can fill the factual and
41:07
legal void created by the lack of evidence that such
41:10
communication ever occurred sets this case apart from every reported
41:15
case brought under section twenty four to twenty two B. Lastly,
41:19
there are no reported cases of violation of Section twenty
41:22
four to twenty three B of a person whose dominant
41:25
purpose in traveling was merely to go to his own home.
41:28
All right, folks, we're going to wrap up episode one
41:30
right here, and in the next episode we're gonna pick
41:32
up where we left off. All of the information that
41:35
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
41:42
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
41:44
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
41:47
where we left off with the letter that was sent
41:50
by Ken Starr to Mark Phillip. Although these matters were
41:54
within the scope of the CEOs review, rather than considering
41:57
whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOs only determined that US
42:02
Attorney Acosta would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should
42:06
he authorize federal prosecution in the case. The abusive discretion
42:11
standard constitutes an extremely low bar of evaluation, and while
42:15
it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are
42:18
exclusively factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns
42:22
particular to this situation, namely the novel application of federal statutes.
42:28
The abusive discretion standard in such pure legal matters of
42:32
statutory application risk causing a lack of uniformity. The same
42:37
federal statutes that would be stretched beyond their bounds in
42:40
Miami have been limited to their heartland in each of
42:43
the other federal districts. Also, because the case implicates broader
42:47
issues of the Administration of Equal Justice, federal prosecution in
42:50
this matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its stretching
42:54
of federal law to fit the facts. In fact, recent
42:57
testimony of several alleged victims claims prosecutors made during the
43:02
negotiation of a deferred prosecution agreement, the consistent representations of
43:07
key government witnesses such as redacted or redacted or redacted
43:10
and redacted confirmed the following critical points. First, there was
43:14
no communication telephonic or otherwise that meets the requirements of
43:18
Section twenty four to twenty two B. For instance, misredacted
43:22
confirmed that mister Epstein never emailed, text messaged, or used
43:26
any facility of interstate commerce whatsoever before or after her
43:30
one and only visit to his home redacted At thirty Second,
43:34
the woman who testified admitted that they lied to mister
43:37
Epstein about their age in order to gain admittance to
43:40
his home. Indeed, the women who brought their underage friends
43:43
to mister Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends
43:46
to lie about their ages as well. Misredacted stated the following,
43:52
I would tell my girlfriends just like redacted, they were
43:55
eighteen or nineteen or twenty. And the girls that I
43:57
didn't know and I don't know if they were lying
44:00
or not. I would say, make sure that you tell
44:02
him you're eighteen. Third, there was no routine or habit
44:05
of improper communication expressing an intent to transform a massage
44:09
into an illegal sex act. In fact, there was often
44:12
no sexual activity at all during the massage. Misredacted testified
44:16
that sometimes mister Epstein just wanted his feet massaged, sometimes
44:20
he just wanted a back massage. Redacted also stated that
44:23
mister Epstein never touched her physically, and that all she
44:26
did was massage's back, his chest, and his thighs and
44:30
that was it. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs,
44:34
or even alcohol present in connection with mister Epstein's encounters
44:38
with these women. Misredacted stated that mister Epstein never tried
44:42
to force me to do anything. These accounts are far
44:45
from the usual testimony in sex slavery, internet stings, and
44:48
sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were
44:54
not younger than sixteen, which is the age of consent
44:56
in most of the fifty States, and the sex activity
44:59
was he reg and in large part considered solo self pleasuring.
45:04
The recent crop of civil suits brought against mister Epstein
45:06
confirmed that the plaintiffs did not discuss any sexually related
45:10
activity with anyone prior to arriving at mister Epstein's residence.
45:14
This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or internet persuasion, inducement, enticement,
45:20
or a coercion of a minor or any other individual occurred.
45:24
In addition, mister Jeffrey Herman, the former law partner of
45:27
one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and
45:30
the attorney for most of the civil complainants as described
45:34
in detail below, was quoted in the Palm Beach Post
45:36
as saying that it doesn't matter that his clients lied
45:39
about their ages and told mister Epstein that they were
45:42
eighteen or nineteen. Not only is the federal prosecution in
45:45
this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors
45:49
and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement are
45:53
beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibility.
45:58
The list of improprieties includes, but is not limited to,
46:01
the following facts. Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that
46:05
Epstein pay a minimum of one hundred and fifty thousand
46:08
dollars per person to an unnamed list of women they
46:11
referred to as miners and to whom they insisted required
46:14
representation by a guardian at Lydium. Mister Epstein's council later
46:19
established that all but one of these individuals were actually adults,
46:23
not miners. Even then, though demanding payment to the women,
46:27
the USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for
46:30
the veracity of any of the claims that these women
46:33
might make. Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand to
46:37
that mister Epstein pay the fees of civil attorneys chosen
46:41
by the prosecutors to represent these alleged victims, should they
46:44
choose to bring any civil litigation against them. They also
46:48
proposed sending a notice to the alleged victims stating in
46:51
an underlying sentence that they should choose their own attorney.
46:54
Mister Epstein would not be required to pay their fees.
46:58
The prosecutors further demands that mister Epstein wave his right
47:01
to challenge any of the allegations made by these victims.
47:05
The assistant US attorney involved in this matter recommended for
47:09
the civil attorney a highly lucrative position, an individual that
47:13
we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the
47:16
assistant US attorney's own boyfriend. Federal prosecutors represented to mister
47:21
Epstein's council that they had identified and later rechecked and
47:24
reidentified several alleged victims of federal crimes that qualified for
47:29
payment under US Code eighteen, section twenty two to fifty five,
47:33
a civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits to victims
47:37
only through state discovery provisions. Did we later learn that
47:40
many of the women on the rechecked victim list could
47:43
not possibly qualify under twenty two to fifty five. The
47:47
reason is that they themselves testified that they did not
47:50
suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the
47:53
civil recovery under twenty two to fifty five. Moreover, these
47:57
women stated that they did not now were in the past,
48:00
consider themselves to be victims. During the last few months,
48:04
mister Herman, first assistant Sloman's former law partner, has filed
48:07
several civil lawsuits against mister Epstein on behalf of the
48:11
alleged victims. It's our understanding that each of mister Herman's
48:15
clients are on the government's confidential list of victims. Most
48:19
of these lawsuits seek fifty million in money damages. Assistant
48:23
US Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great
48:26
detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with The New York Times,
48:29
and revealed confidential information about the government's allegations against mister Epstein.
48:34
The assistant US attorney also revealed the substance of confidential
48:39
plea negotiations, and just to interject, Landon Thomas is a
48:43
reporter that was outed in the emails as being an
48:45
Epstein confidant. So he was getting information from David Weinstein,
48:49
who was a US attorney, and then funneling it to
48:51
Jeffrey Epstein. But we're crazy, we're conspiracy theorists right. When
48:57
counsel for mister Epstein complained about the media, Eleak's first
49:00
assistant Slowman, responded by asserting that mister Thomas was given,
49:04
pursuant to his request, non case specific information concerning specific
49:08
federal statutes. Based on mister thomas contemporaneous notes, that assertion
49:13
appears to be false. For example, mister Weinstein told mister
49:17
Thomas that federal authorities believe that Epstein had lured girls
49:21
over the telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the
49:24
purpose of engaging in under age sex. He recounted to
49:28
mister Thomas the usao's theory of prosecution against mister Epstein,
49:32
replete with an analysis of the key statutes being considered. Furthermore,
49:37
after a mister Epstein's defense team complained about the league
49:40
to USAO, mister Weinstein and mister Thomas owned description then
49:45
admonished him for talking to the defense and getting him
49:48
in trouble. Mister Weinstein further told him not to believe
49:51
the spin of mister Epstein's high priced attorneys, and then,
49:55
according to mister Thomas, mister Weinstein forcefully reminded mister Thomas
49:59
that all prior conversations were merely hypothetical. We are constrained
50:04
to conclude that the actions of federal officials in this
50:07
case strike at the heart of one of the vitally
50:09
important enduring values in this country, the honest enforcement of
50:13
federal law, free of political consideration and free of the
50:17
tank of personal financial motivations on the part of federal
50:21
prosecutors that at a minimum raise the appearance of serious impropriety.
50:26
We were told by the US Attorney Acosta that is
50:28
part of the review he requested. The Department had the
50:31
authority and dis consent to make any determination it deemed
50:35
appropriate regarding this matter, including a decision to decline federal prosecution.
50:40
Yet CEO's only conclusion, based on its limited review of
50:44
the investigation, is that U. S Attorney Acosta would not
50:48
abuse his discretion by proceeding against mister Epstein. Thus, the
50:52
decision on whether the prosecution is fair and appropriate has
50:56
been placed once again in US Attorney Acosta's hands. In
51:00
light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask you that you
51:03
review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement so that
51:07
the state can appropriately bring this matter to closure. We
51:11
would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to
51:14
discuss these important issues. Such a meeting would provide the
51:17
Department with an opportunity to review the paramount issues of
51:21
federalism and the appearance of selectivity that are generated by
51:25
the unprecedented attempts to broaden the ambit of federal statutes
51:29
to places that they have never been reached. We sincerely
51:32
appreciate your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Ken Starr
51:36
and Joe Whitley. All right, and as you can see
51:39
from this letter they went way above Acosta's head. Like
51:42
I've told you from the very beginning, this was not
51:45
an Acosta decision. In fact, Acosta, if anything, wanted to proceed,
51:50
he was undercut by his bosses at the DOJ. And
51:54
if you needed proof of that, here it is. This
51:56
was the opening salvo of the sweetheart deal being put
51:59
in the place. And you see how they just go
52:02
over Acosta's head. Like I've been telling you for years,
52:05
So the whole entire time that people waste it on
52:07
Acosta just more time for these people to get their
52:10
narrative under control, when the real people that were in
52:13
charge of this shit were sitting in DC. And if
52:16
you're looking for the real architect of the Jeffrey Epstein NPA,
52:19
look no further than Mark Phillip. All of the information
52:24
that goes with this episode can be found in the
52:26
description box