Epstein Secrets

o a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton” required Departmental review. On this latter p

and “the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal laws . . . to a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton” required Departmental review. On this latter point, they argued that Epstein “entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal assoc

ew. On this latter point, they argued that Epstein “entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton,” and that there was “little doubt” that the USAO “never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein were just another ‘John.

ontemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation, identified him as a wealthy Palm Beach resident with influential contacts, including William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz, and other “prominent businessmen, academics and scientists.”210 Villafaña, Lourie, Sloman, and A

Starr, Dershowitz, Lefcourt, and Boston attorney Martin Weinberg. The USAO side included Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, and another senior AUSA, with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present. In addition to previously raised arguments, during this meeting, Epstein’s attorneys

sion of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "c ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order to prev

ein is a prominent figure with "c ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that

mber 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December 146 meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself I I write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address is

n of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order t

is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that

ber 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December 14th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.' I write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address is

n of federal law" by the SDFL suggests that this is politically motivated because Epstein is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that FAUSA Sloman unilaterally, arbitrarily and unnecessarily imposed a June 2, 2008 deadline in order t

is a prominent figure with "close ties to former President Clinton." Messrs. Starr and Whitley go on to claim that

ember 19, 2007 write to follow up on the December I4th meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as well as our First Assistant, the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and myself.I I write to you because I am not certain who among the defense team is the appropriate recipient of this letter. I address is