Epstein Secrets

to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer.

a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefk

d left a message that he was calling regarding Epstein.151 At Fisher’s request, Lourie, who in late September 2007 had begun serving his detail as Fisher’s Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff, returned the call. Fisher told OPR that she had no recollection of this call, and Lourie also could

led the office of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher and left a message that he was calling regarding Epstein.151 At Fisher’s request, Lourie, who in late September 2007 had begun serving his detail as Fisher’s Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff, returned the call. Fis

s statement was an untruth. But let us presuppose for argument's sake that Acosta of his own accord failed to send out the letters. Then Fisher and Mandelker who were aware that the victim letters had not been sent as of April 28, 2008 should have caused Acosta to send the letters as required and thus pr

out and being sentenced. The victims would have also been notified of the plea agreement giving them time to attack the provisions. But Fisher and Mandelker didn't do so because they were confederates in a plot to subvert justice and concealment was paramount. Finally, it should be noted that it is hig

decision making role in the Epstein matter". (see Pogo story on Monsanto dated August 28, 2019) In a misguided attempt to obscure her involvement, Fisher makes mention of the Epstein case in her biographical data found in Wikipedia. In that regard and under "Major Cases" Fisher noted the following: "

er to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department’s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue

ho advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker’s purported involvement in the decision. 220 decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly w

ion phase of this matter.” On December 5, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta, with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, “reaffirm[ing]” the NPA, but taking “serious issue” with 312 On November 28, 2007, two months a