Epstein Secrets

l attitude to the world of business. He pioneered the Southern District’s approach to corporate crime. When his prosecutors

S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, at Trump Tower in November 2016 (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) After his election in 1968, President Richard Nixon asked Robert Morgenthau, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to resign. Morgenthau refused to leave voluntarily, saying it degrade

ional. by Jesse Eisinger ProPublica, March 12, 2017, 6:22 p.m. 1 Comment Print Print search Follow ProPublica reet Bharara, then U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, at Trump Tower in November 2016 (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) After his election in 1968, President Richard Nixon asked Robert Morgenthau, the US Att

e eee rere oe wel rare otanelv ene Ccenias ees 13 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., OS CUBR tay OLY.) En a

. Schall, Special Counsel to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida, to inform her Office of the Post’s in

ler, 800 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2011) (release of President Nixon’s grand jury deposition testimony in connection w

uits that followecj. Appe11dix at 3 (QPR Report, pp. i, ?(ii). 49. In a July 8, 2019, letter to the federal district court by the;u.s. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Epstein was described as ''a serial sexual predator who preyed on doz(;n__s of minor girls over a period of years." The letter emphasized that "the

. P. 17(c)(Q). °4 See generally United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 689 (1974). 95 See id. at 699. D

rious crimes the right to restitution. *°* Reinforcing those laws, the CVRA guarantees that victims have "the right 43 Magistrate Judge Orenstein of the Eastern District of New York, who has written many thoughtful opinions on the CVRA, has taken a contrary position. See Report and Recommendation, United States v. Ingrassis, No.

ates Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure

(9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 1341, 1343-44 (D. Utah 2005); see also United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (reaching same conclusion). *98 Bucklew Memo, supra note 580, app. a, at 299, 302-03. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017711 --- PAGE BREAK --