Epstein Secrets

ely aware, the Department’s prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not “de novo.” See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, tasked

bmission, 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 Villa

ely aware, the Department’s prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not “de novo.” See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, tasked

bmission, 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 Vi

ly aware, the Department's prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not "de novo." See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, task

mission, 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 t i sh n of the case and specific terms of a plea negotiation between the parties. Second, AUSA