Epstein Secrets

hut down an ongoing FBI probe . . . .” Julie K. Brown, “Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump cabin

crimes and the number of people involved. . . . [T]he deal—called a non-prosecution agreement—essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe . . . .” Julie K. Brown, “Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,” Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. The NPA,

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,

hat allowed him both to escape significant punishment for his past conduct and to continue his 3 Julie K. Brown, “Perversion of Justice,” Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. https://www.miamiherald.com/ news/local/article220097825 html. iv abuse of minors.

3 Julie K. Brown, “Perversion of Justice,” Miami Herald, Nov. 28,

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

girl was asked about her abortions, and her parents, who were Catholic and knew nothing about the abortions, were also deposed and questioned.” See Julie Brown, “Perversion of Justice: Cops Worked to Put a Serial Sex Abuser in Prison. Prosecutors Worked to Cut Him a Break,” Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018.

ns, were also deposed and questioned.” See Julie Brown, “Perversion of Justice: Cops Worked to Put a Se

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

24 F.3d 65, 76-77 (1" Cir. 2005); United States' Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (11`h Cir. 1995). The governmen

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

f an opportunity to engage in prohibited conduct. See, e.g,. United States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76-77 (ls' Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (11th Cir. 1995). The government cannot fairly, or consistent with the rule of lenity, advocate a broader definition of the same t

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

of an opportunity to engage in prohibited conduct. See, e.g,. United States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76-77 (1" Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (I1th Cu. 1995). The government cannot fairly, or consistent with the rule of lenity, advocate a broader definition of the same te

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

ger Stefin Karen Atkinson Rolando Garcia Bruce Brown Richard Boscovich Barbara Martinez From cc: A

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-

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

f an opportunity to engage in prohibited conduct. See, e.g,. United States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76-77 (ls' Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (11th Cir. 1995). The government cannot fairly, or consistent with the rule of lenity, advocate a broader definition of the same t