Epstein Secrets

tion to the New York Times 44. Perhaps most troubling of all, the USAO has repeatedly leaked information about this case to the media—including to Landon Thomas, the senior business correspondent for the New York Thnes. We have personally reviewed Mr. Thomas's own notes, and they are remarkably detailed abo

about this case to the media—including to Landon Thomas, the senior business correspondent for the New York Thnes. We have personally reviewed Mr. Thomas's own notes, and they are remarkably detailed about highly confidential aspects of the prosecution's theory of the case and the plea negotiations.

A00209852 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's stead." Slip op. at 6.I In Cuellar, the Court examined the link between the money-laundering statute's mens rea requirement and the underlying elements of the offense. After a careful

o Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal statutes, including those enacted to protect important fede

EFTA00157660 LAW OFFICES ALLEN GUTHRIN: MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC GEORGE 43.GUIRRE ROSERT e. PALEN RFJXCCA A. SETTS R. IERRAKE ROCOERS CANSO IS THOMAS ONES S. ARNO° DAVOS HARDY Mt SCOTT WCKLINE PANELS I. CANINO PAMELA C. CON PINUP .S STEPKOIETTHACKER DREAMT J. ANN TERESA K. INOWSON DEBRA

tion to the New York Times 44. Perhaps most troubling of all, the USAO has repeatedly leaked information about this case to the media—including to Landon Thomas, the senior business correspondent for the New York Times. We have personally reviewed Mr. Thomas's own notes, and they are remarkably detailed abo

it is not in accord with the principles of justice. Indeed, as noted, just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court underscored this point in Santos and Cuellar. The Court made clear that prosecutorial discretion does not provide the USAO cart blanche to expand criminal statutes as they seek to do here with

upreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal statutes, including those enacted to protect important fede

to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court’s interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully demonstrate the subst

rmation about this case to the media—including to Landon Thomas, the senior business correspondent for the New Yor