Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mark Filip’s Role: The Missing Link in the Epstein Cover-Up (Part 2)

Transcript

Mark Filip’s Role: The Missing Link in the Epstein Cover-Up (Part 2) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:06
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:08
  where we left off with the letter that was sent
• 0:11
  by Ken Starr to Mark Phillip. Although these matters were
• 0:15
  within the scope of the CEOs review, rather than considering
• 0:19
  whether federal prosecution is appropriate, CEOs only determined that US
• 0:23
  Attorney Acosta would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should
• 0:28
  he authorize federal prosecution in the case. The abusive discretion
• 0:32
  standard constitutes an extremely low bar of evaluation, and while
• 0:36
  it may be appropriate when the consideration of issues are
• 0:39
  exclusively factual in nature, this standard fails to address concerns
• 0:44
  particular to this situation, namely the novel application of federal statutes.
• 0:49
  The abusive discretion standard in such pure legal matters of
• 0:53
  statutory application risk causing a lack of uniformity. The same
• 0:58
  federal statutes that would stretch beyond their bounds in Miami
• 1:02
  have been limited to their heartland in each of the
• 1:04
  other federal districts. Also, because the case implicates broader issues
• 1:08
  of the administration of equal Justice, federal prosecution in this
• 1:12
  matter risks the appearance of selectivity in its stretching of
• 1:15
  federal law to fit the facts. In fact, recent testimony
• 1:19
  of several alleged victims contradict claims prosecutors made during the
• 1:23
  negotiation of a deferred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of
• 1:28
  key government witnesses such as redacted or redacted or redacted
• 1:31
  and redacted, confirm the following critical points. First, there was
• 1:35
  no communication telephonic or otherwise that meets the requirements of
• 1:39
  Section twenty four to twenty two B. For instance, misredacted
• 1:43
  confirmed that mister Epstein never emailed, text messaged, or used
• 1:47
  any facility of interstate commerce whatsoever before or after her
• 1:51
  one and only visit to his home redacted At thirty Second,
• 1:55
  the woman who testified admitted that they lied to mister
• 1:58
  Epstein about their age and ordered to gain admittance to
• 2:01
  his home. Indeed, the women who brought their underage friends
• 2:04
  to mister Epstein testified that they would counsel their friends
• 2:07
  to lie about their ages as well. Misredacted stated the following,
• 2:13
  I would tell my girlfriends just like redacted, they were
• 2:16
  eighteen or nineteen or twenty, and the girls that I
• 2:19
  didn't know and I don't know if they were lying
• 2:21
  or not. I would say, make sure that you tell
• 2:23
  him you're eighteen. Third, there was no routine or habit
• 2:26
  of improper communication expressing an intent to transform a massage
• 2:30
  into an illegal sex act. In fact, there was often
• 2:33
  no sexual activity at all during the massage. Misredacted testified
• 2:37
  that sometimes mister Epstein just wanted his feet massaged, sometimes
• 2:41
  he just wanted a back massage. Redacted also stated that
• 2:44
  mister Epstein never touched her physically, and that all she
• 2:48
  did was massage's back, his chest, and his thighs and
• 2:51
  that was it. Finally, there was no force, coercion, fraud, violence, drugs,
• 2:55
  or even alcohol present in connection with mister Epstein's encounters
• 2:59
  with these women. Misredacted stated that mister Epstein never tried
• 3:03
  to force me to do anything. These accounts are far
• 3:06
  from the usual testimony in sex slavery, internet stings, and
• 3:09
  sex tourism cases previously brought. The women in actuality were
• 3:15
  not younger than sixteen, which is the age of consent
• 3:17
  in most of the fifty States, and the sex activity
• 3:20
  was irregular and in large part considered solo self pleasuring.
• 3:25
  The recent crop of civil suits brought against mister Epstein
• 3:28
  confirmed that the plaintiffs did not discuss any sexually related
• 3:31
  activity with anyone prior to arriving at mister Epstein's residence.
• 3:35
  This reinforces our contention that no telephonic or internet persuasion, inducement, enticement,
• 3:41
  or a coercion of a minor or any other individual occurred.
• 3:45
  In addition, mister Jeffrey Herman, the former law partner of
• 3:48
  one of the federal prosecutors involved in this matter and
• 3:51
  the attorney for most of the civil complainants as described
• 3:55
  in detail below, was quoted in the Palm Beach Post
• 3:58
  as saying that it doesn't matter that his clomedients lied
• 4:00
  about their ages and told mister Epstein that they were
• 4:03
  eighteen or nineteen. Not only is the federal prosecution of
• 4:06
  this matter unwarranted, but the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors
• 4:10
  and the unorthodox terms of the deferred prosecution agreement are
• 4:14
  beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibility.
• 4:19
  The list of improprieties includes, but is not limited to,
• 4:22
  the following facts. Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that
• 4:26
  Epstein pay a minimum of one hundred and fifty thousand
• 4:29
  dollars per person to an unnamed list of women they
• 4:32
  referred to as miners and to whom they insisted required
• 4:35
  representation by a guardian at Lydium. Mister Epstein's council later
• 4:40
  established that all but one of these individuals were actually adults,
• 4:44
  not miners. Even then, though demanding payment to the women,
• 4:48
  the USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for
• 4:51
  the veracity of any of the claims that these women
• 4:54
  might make. Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that
• 4:58
  mister Epstein paid the fees of civil attorneys chosen by
• 5:02
  the prosecutors to represent these alleged victims, should they choose
• 5:06
  to bring any civil litigation against them. They also proposed
• 5:09
  sending a notice to the alleged victims stating in an
• 5:13
  underlying sentence that they should choose their own attorney. Mister
• 5:16
  Epstein would not be required to pay their fees. The
• 5:19
  prosecutors further demanded that mister Epstein waive his right to
• 5:23
  challenge any of the allegations made by these victims. The
• 5:27
  assistant US attorney involved in this matter recommended for the
• 5:30
  civil attorney a highly lucrative position an individual that we
• 5:34
  later discovered was closely and personally connected to the assistant
• 5:38
  US attorney's own boyfriend. Federal prosecutors represented to mister Epstein's
• 5:42
  council that they had identified and later rechecked and reidentified
• 5:46
  several alleged victims of federal crimes that qualified for payment
• 5:51
  under US Code eighteen, Section twenty two fifty five, a
• 5:54
  civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits to victims only
• 5:58
  through state discovery provision. Did we later learn that many
• 6:02
  of the women on the rechecked victim list could not
• 6:04
  possibly qualify under twenty two to fifty five. The reason
• 6:09
  is that they themselves testified that they did not suffer
• 6:11
  any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil
• 6:15
  recovery under twenty two to fifty five. Moreover, these women
• 6:18
  stated that they did not now are in the past,
• 6:21
  consider themselves to be victims. During the last few months,
• 6:25
  mister Herman, first assistant Sloman's former law partner, has filed
• 6:28
  several civil lawsuits against mister Epstein on behalf of the
• 6:32
  alleged victims. It's our understanding that each of mister Herman's
• 6:36
  clients are on the government's confidential list of victims. Most
• 6:40
  of these lawsuits seek fifty million in money damages. Assistant
• 6:44
  US Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great
• 6:47
  detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with The New York Times,
• 6:51
  and revealed confidential information about the government's allegations against mister Epstein.
• 6:56
  The assistant US attorney also revealed the substance of confidential negotiations,
• 7:01
  and just to interject, Blendon Thomas is a reporter that
• 7:04
  was outed in the emails as being an Epstein confidant.
• 7:08
  So he was getting information from David Weinstein, who was
• 7:10
  a US attorney, and then funneling it to Jeffrey Epstein.
• 7:15
  But we're crazy, we're conspiracy theorists right. When counsel for
• 7:19
  mister Epstein complained about the media leak's first assistant Slowman,
• 7:22
  responded by asserting that mister Thomas was given, pursuant to
• 7:26
  his request, non case specific information concerning specific federal statutes.
• 7:31
  Based on mister thomas contemporaneous notes, that assertion appears to
• 7:35
  be false. For example, mister Weinstein told mister Thomas that
• 7:39
  federal authorities believe that Epstein had lured girls over the
• 7:42
  telephone and traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of
• 7:46
  engaging in underage sex. He recounted to mister Thomas the
• 7:50
  usao's theory of prosecution against mister Epstein, replete with an
• 7:54
  analysis of the key statutes being considered. Furthermore, after mister
• 7:59
  Epstein's defense team complained about the league two USAO, mister
• 8:03
  Weinstein and mister Thomas owned description then admonished him for
• 8:07
  talking to the defense and getting him in trouble. Mister
• 8:10
  Weinstein further told him not to believe the spin of
• 8:13
  mister Epstein's high priced attorneys, and then, according to mister Thomas,
• 8:17
  mister Weinstein forcefully reminded mister Thomas that all prior conversations
• 8:22
  were merely hypothetical. We are constrained to conclude that the
• 8:26
  actions of federal officials in this case strike at the
• 8:29
  heart of one of the vitally important enduring values in
• 8:32
  this country, the honest enforcement of federal law, free of
• 8:36
  political consideration and free of the tank of personal financial
• 8:40
  motivations on the part of federal prosecutors, that at a
• 8:43
  minimum raised the appearance of serious impropriety. We were told
• 8:48
  by the US Attorney Acosta that is part of the
• 8:50
  review he requested the Department had the authority and his
• 8:53
  consent to make any determination it deemed appropriate regarding this matter,
• 8:58
  including a decision to decline federal prosecution. Yet CEO's only conclusion,
• 9:04
  based on its limited review of the investigation, is that
• 9:07
  US Attorney Acosta would not abuse his discretion by proceeding
• 9:11
  against mister Epstein. Thus, the decision on whether the prosecution
• 9:15
  is fair and appropriate has been placed once again in
• 9:19
  US Attorney Acosta's hands. In light of the foregoing, we
• 9:23
  respectfully ask you that you review this matter and discontinue
• 9:26
  all federal involvement so that the state can appropriately bring
• 9:30
  this matter to closure. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity
• 9:34
  to meet with you to discuss these important issues. Such
• 9:37
  a meeting would provide the Department with an opportunity to
• 9:40
  review the paramount issues of federalism and the appearance of
• 9:44
  selectivity that are generated by the unprecedented attempts to broaden
• 9:48
  the ambit of federal statutes to places that they have
• 9:51
  never been reached. We sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter,
• 9:55
  Respectfully submitted, Ken Starr and Joe Whitley. All right, and
• 9:59
  as you can see from this letter, they went way
• 10:01
  above Acosta's head. Like I've told you from the very beginning,
• 10:06
  this was not an Acosta decision. In fact, Acosta, if anything,
• 10:10
  wanted to proceed, he was undercut by his bosses at
• 10:14
  the DOJ. And if you needed proof of that, here
• 10:16
  it is. This was the opening salvo of the sweetheart
• 10:20
  deal being put into place. And you see how they
• 10:22
  just go over Acosta's head. Like I've been telling you
• 10:25
  for years. So the whole entire time that people wasteed
• 10:28
  on Acosta just more time for these people to get
• 10:31
  their narrative under control, when the real people that were
• 10:34
  in charge of this shit were sitting in DC. And
• 10:37
  if you're looking for the real architect of the Jeffrey
• 10:39
  Epstein NPA, look no further than Mark Philip. All of
• 10:44
  the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 10:47
  in the description box