Epstein Secrets

ilf federal iaw by lure t *lined States Attorticy's °Ilia in Miami tthe "liSAO- I to a girl:mown: publie at ho Ic•s close tics ii former President Clinton. -Hie need for review is now all the more exigent. On Monday. May 19. 2008. lost Ass:stan; Jen', ey Slosnan of the 1.;SAO responded in an email fro

inal investigation of Palm Beach resident, Jeffrey E. Epstein. The press has widely reported that Mr. Epstein is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. 2. In July 2006, after an intensive probe, including interviews of dozens of witnesses, returns of numerous document subpoenas, multiple trash pu

irl:mown: publie at ho Ic•s close tics ii former President Clinton. -Hie need for review is now all the more exigen

novo review of the investigation and facilitated such review at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. " Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 5,1 3. The Truth: • CEOS' review, concluded in May 2008, was neither independent nor de nova o CEOS' review was not "independent:" • who co

subject of general media interest until a few years ago, after it was widely perceived by the public that he was a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. The conduct at issue is simply not within the purview of federal jurisdiction and lies outside the heartland of the three federal statutes that ha

t he was a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. The conduct at issue is simply not within the p

n's attorneys stating that "I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday [two days later]." See Tab 34, November 27, 2007 Email from J. Sloman to J. Lelkowitz. 42. The morning of November 28, attorneys for Mr. Epstein faxed a letter to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, requesting a

al prosecutors would have been involved at all in this matter if not for Mr. Epstein’s personal wealth and publicly-reported ties to former President Bill Clinton. A simple Internet search on Mr. Epstein reveals myriad articles and news stories about the former President’s personal relationship with Mr. Epstein

d publicly-reported ties to former President Bill Clinton. A simple Internet search on Mr. Epstein reveals

nt representation that “/T]/he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration...” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 2. This statement is simply not true. Contrary to Mr. Sloman’s assertion, federal prosecutors refused to accept what the State believed to be app

al prosecutors would have been involved at all in this matter if not for Mr. Epstein’s personal wealth and publicly-reported ties to former President Bill Clinton. A simple Internet search on Mr. Epstein reveals myriad articles and news stories about the former President’s personal relationship with Mr. Epstein

d publicly-reported ties to former President Bill Clinton. A simple Internet search on Mr. Epstein reveals

ent representation that “/T]he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration...” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 2. This statement is simply not true. Contrary to Mr. Sloman’s assertion, federal prosecutors refused to accept what the State believed to be app