Epstein Secrets

o asserted that OPR “misunderstands and devalues Secretary Acosta’s very real and legitimate interest in the develo

afaña opined, “This is NOT good faith negotiations.” Lourie responded that he would “reach out to Alex to discuss.” Lourie immediately emailed Acosta the following: I looked at the latest draft from Jay [Lefkowitz] and I must agree with Marie. Based on my own conversations with him, his draft is

n for work release because his sexual offender registration would not take place 177 Letter from R. Alexander Acosta “To whom it may concern” (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily Beast. The FBI Special Agent in Charge told OPR that he had no recollection

attorneys [ ] [became] something to consider. . . . . I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didn’t know what I was talking [about] also, all came into play. So I think there were a number of factors and it all came together. Altho

rosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims, interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country,

Subsequently, Ms. 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001657 EFTA00209836 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney Acosta would accept no ess than 18 months of incarceration, following by a one-year term of house arrest. Federal Prosecutors Misrepresented the Number of

rom beci ninr public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. 22. Ms. replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], Andy [Lourie], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 23. Ms. stated that the agreement would be "placed

matters related -to these subpoenas with other attorneys. Thank you again for your assistance. cc: E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, FBI By: Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Att A. Marie Assistant United States Attorney 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001698 EFTA00209877 05/15/2007 16:57 FAX 5618021787 US

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal st

ought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with her supervisor’s approval and with the knowledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. She worked with two FBI case agents to develop a federal case against Epstein and, in the course of the investigation, they discovered additional

ttle the case, the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment remained pending for more than a year. In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On April 17, 2017,

thy substantive email about the case to her immediate supervisor, Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta on August 23, 2006, Lourie emailed Sloman: “Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the case?” Sloman responded, “At this point, I don’t really care. If Alex says something then I’ll tell her to just run

Chief] Oosterba[an] to participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting. Thoughts? Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental “scrutiny of the NPA scheme” and that “[i]f anything,” he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to “drop this case.”96 2. Le

175 Epstein’s state guilty plea.250 As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances, his decision to do so r

that I spoke with him, you know, there had been all of this . . . letter writing or all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification, and so I felt like that prohibited me from

otify the victims, “OPR identified no reason why Secretary Acosta should have distrusted his team on these points.”

ent had the “right” to address Epstein’s concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be “unseemly” to object. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta

that the United States Attorney could bring this case in the exercise of his federal discretion should he so choose ("we conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case."). (CEOS letter at p. 2). However, CEOS drew the conclusion that the 3505-

p this from limit public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Leficowitz to,. 22. -replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], [ , and I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 23. stated that the agreement would be "placed in the case file, which will be

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal st

erials, see Title 18, U.S.CA. 1211 EFTA00226423 Memorandum Subject Changes to Child Exploitation Statutes in Title 18 September 26, 2006 To R. Alexander Acosta Thomas Mulvihill Jeffrey Sloman Kenneth Now Robert Waters Andrew Lourie Roger Stefin Karen Atkinson Rolando Garcia Bruce Brown Richard Bosc

n Title 18 September 26, 2006 To R. Alexander Acosta Thomas Mulvihill Jeffrey Sloman Kenneth Now R

pervisory responsibility over the subject matter, or his/her designee, when: 1. Prior consultation or approval would be required by a statute or by Departmental policy for a declination of prosecution or dismissal of a charge with regard to which the agreement is to be made; or 2. The person is: a. A high-

nted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal stat

sequently, Ms. 4 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012163 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Villafana emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney Acosta would accept no less than 18 months of incarceration, following by a one-year term of house arrest. Federal Prosecutors Misrepresented the Number of

lic.” See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. Villafana. 22. Ms. Villafana replied that she had “forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], Andy [Lourie], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don’t anticipate it going any further than that.” Jd. 23. Ms. Villafana stated that the agreement would be