Epstein Secrets

ANY NEW TONN EFTA00316512 Contents AUTHOR'S NOTE XI 1. BULLSEYE 1 2. THE DO-OVER 21 3. LAWYERS 38 4. HOME ALONE 50 5. ROBERT MUELLER 6o 6. MICHAEL COHEN 75 7. THE WOMEN 88 8. MICHAEL FLYNN 99 9. MIDTERMS 113 10. KUSHNER 125 11. HANNITY 1 43 12. TRUMP ABROAD 156 13. TRUMP AND PUTIN 169 EFTA0031

HNER 125 11. HANNITY 1 43 12. TRUMP ABROAD 156 13. TRUMP AND PUTIN 169 EFTA00316513 x CONTENTS 14.100 DAYS 185 15. MANAPORT 196 16. PECKER, COHEN, WEISSELBERG 209 17. MCCAIN, WOODWARD, ANONYMOUS 223 18. KAVANAUGH 234 19. KHASHOGGI 246 20. OCTOBER SURPRISES 257 21. NOVEMBER 6 268 22. SHUTD

nd in 1990 the threat of a RICO indictment, under which the government could almost indiscriminately seize assets, brought down the investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert. The Southern District had long been worrisome to Trump. After his election, he had an unseemly meeting with Preet Bharara, the federal pros- ecuto

ERSIGHT_021120 --- PAGE BREAK --- Contents AUTHOR’S NOTE XI 1. BULLSEYE 1 2. THE DO-OVER 21 3. LAWYERS 38 4. HOME ALONE 50 5. ROBERT MUELLER 60 6. MICHAEL COHEN 75 7. THE WOMEN 88 8. MICHAEL FLYNN 99 9. MIDTERMS 113 10. KUSHNER 125 11. HANNITY 143 12. TRUMP ABROAD 156 13. TRUMP AND PUTIN 169 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT

143 12. TRUMP ABROAD 156 13. TRUMP AND PUTIN 169 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021121 --- PAGE BREAK --- CONTENTS 14.100 DAYS 185 15. MANAFORT 196 16. PECKER, COHEN, WEISSELBERG 209 17. MCCAIN, WOODWARD, ANONYMOUS 223 18. KAVANAUGH 234 19. KHASHOGGI 246 20. OCTOBER SURPRISES 257 21. NOVEMBER 6 268 22. SHUTDOWN 28

and in 1990 the threat of a RICO indictment, under which the government could almost indiscriminately seize assets, brought down the investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert. The Southern District had long been worrisome to Trump. After his election, he had an unseemly meeting with Preet Bharara, the federal pros- ecutor

Timothy John Finn, Jones Day (DC), Louis Richard Cohen, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Washington), William

fering evidence of record that the defendant un- dertook certain activities that fall within the scope” of one of the statutory excep- tions) (citing Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. v. Comm. of Receivers for A.W. Galadari, 12 F.3d 317, 325 (2d Cir. 1993)). In challenging this Court’s sub- ject matter jurisdiction, the m