Epstein Secrets

bout Mr. Epstein's lawyer's statement that someone from our Office told them that "we are ready to pull the trigger." 13After reviewing his e-mail, AUSA Weinstein discussed the matter with U.S. Attorney Acosta. Pursuant to USAM 1-7330 and the Media Relations Guide, Section III D2, after consultation with and

Office of Professional Responsibility. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -9- EFTA00225186 A. The Morning of January 2, 2008. AUSA Weinstein began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007

female in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen- .; ;. year-old girl. (8) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $300 to Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl, for allowing an unidentified female to perform oral sex on Jane Doe #2 in EPSTEIN's presence. (9) On or

ted differently than anyone else. Mr. Thomas apparently stated that he understood that there was evidence that the women had lied about their ages. AUSA Weinstein replied that this was not a defense and that Mr. Thomas should not believe "the spin" of Mr. Epstein's "high-priced attorneys." Indeed, Mr. Weinste

er in the former firm of Herman, , & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein," despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder

in the former firm of Herman, Sloman, & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled “Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein,” despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder

hed” him (in the words of Mr. Thomas) for disclosing the contents of their prior conversation to the defense, and strongly “reminded” Mr. Thomas that AUSA Weinstein’s prior comments about Mr. Epstein had only been “hypothetical” in nature. That claim is sheer nonsense: AUSA Weinstein had disclosed specific details