Epstein Secrets

ions, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant

lated federal law. The USAO- SDFL investigation was led by honorable federal prosecutors with outstanding reputations, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern

ial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."). The notion that "well-connected lawyers corrupted [] then-U.S Attorney Alex Acosta and his team into giving Epstein a sweetheart deal" has been soundly debunked; 11 EFTA00299031 there is no such evidence — NONE. Sloman, Alex Aco

requires that a crime victim be harmed by an offense that "is charged in Federal district court." (DE 403-15:1-2). The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") confirmed this view in 2010, noting that "the CVRA is best read as providing that the rights identified in section 3771(a) are guaranteed f

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

TMENT’S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA’S DEFINITION OF “CRIME VICTIM” AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION ................ 192 A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel “Preliminary Review” ............................192 B. 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance ..............193 IV.

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.”

ice. III. THE DEPARTMENT’S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA’S DEFINITION OF “CRIME VICTIM” AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel “Preliminary Review” In 2005, Department management requested informal guidance from the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding int