Epstein Secrets

tant U.S. Attorne Original Messa e From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, Jul 05, 2007 3:30 PM To: Villafana, Ann C. (USAFLS); Sloman, M(USAFLS) Cc: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Epstein Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and, in combination with other matters in

e application of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in a call for the resignation of the AUSA who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I found that very disheartening and hoped that this Administration would be different. However, my first and only concern in this case

Counsel" containing: Work product Deliberative process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege ■ 7/13/2007 letter from to with handwritten attorney (Lourie) notes; ■ 6/2 /2 I from Gerald Lefcourt Matt Menchal , and with handwritten attorney • ■ 6/25/2007 email fro to Matt Menchel and entitle

for the Southern District of Florida and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys. (DE 212-1 at 22-23); see Table at P-013248-13278). One of the Executive Office's functions is to "[p]rovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the Uni

so the plea agreement would have had to be a binding plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), which is what I drafted. I was informed by Mr. Lourie that USA Acosta did not want to do a (c)(1)(C) plea, so I had to find charges that would result in a two-year statutory maximum. This resulted in m

application of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in a call for the resignation of the AUSA who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims