Epstein Secrets

it is whether they can require the defendant to serve a sentence that was not even "available" to State prosecutors. Id. In this case, however, Mr. Menchel has not asked for anything that State prosecutors could not have obtained. The fact that State authorities chose—for unquestionably legitimate reaso

without substantiation, that the proposed State plea agreement failed to vindicate the federal interest. On August 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Menchel rejected the State's new proposed plea agreement. He flatly stated that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year te

federal prosecutors were taking in order to circumvent its restrictions. Mr. Menchel's articulation of the purported federal interest misrepresents the Petite Policy on two grounds. First, Mr. Menchel's position that the federal interest could not be vindicated in the absence of a jail term for Mr. Epstein is co

a state prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon StItA.L55fili completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. Mr. Menchel stated that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year term in state prison." Sec August 3. 2007 letter. Such an art

eas of traditionally local concern, we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prosecution was appropriate. However, on August 3, 2007. Matthew Menchel rejected a proposed state plea which included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by two years of incarceration in a st

hing the relevant federal statutes beyond recognition, and that federal involvement in this mutter should be precluded butt on federalism concerns, the Petite Policy, and general principles of prosecutorial disattion, the panics corn • discussions of a possible plea agreement. Around this time, we received an e

n to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead

ing the relevant federal statutes beyond recognition, and that federal involvement in this matter should be precluded based on federalism concerns. the Petite Policy, and general principles or prosecutorial discretion. the parties commenced discussions an possible pica agreement. Around this time, we received an