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