Epstein Secrets

d with a senior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein). At this stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concems regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if necess

the federal statutes our had brought forth and to the application of those laws to the facts as presented, it is abundantly clear from letter that Main Justice is not directing this prosecution. In fact, CEOS plainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein would involve a 'novel application'

States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002) 24, 25 United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268 (2d Cir. 2004) 14, 22, 27, 29 United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) 24 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 21 United States v.

the supervision of R. Alexander Acosta, then United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"), and approved by senior levels of Main Justice, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. In that NPA, the government agreed that any federal prosecution of Epstein in the SDFL would

d with a senior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein). At this stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if neces

athetic" to our various federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you. believed your hands were tied by Main Justice. You were also extremely gracious in stating that you did not want the United States to be "unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment to the fe

with a senior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein. At stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if necessary,

tatutes your Office had brought forth and to the application of those laws to the facts as presented, it is abundantly clear from Drew's letter that Main Justice is not directing this prosecution. In fact, CEOS plainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein would involve a "novel application"

States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002) 24, 25 United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268 (2d Cir. 2004) 14, 22, 27, 29 United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) 24 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 21 United States v.

the supervision of R. Alexander Acosta, then United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"), and approved by senior levels of Main Justice, including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. In that NPA, the government agreed that any federal prosecution of Epstein in the SDFL would

with alSenior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein). At this stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if neces

athetic" to our various federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you believed your hands were tied by Main Justice. You were also extremely gracious in stating that you did not want the United States to be "unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment to the fe

with alSenior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein). At this stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if neces

athetic" to our various federalism concerns, but stated that because you serve within the "unitary Executive," you believed your hands were tied by Main Justice. You were also extremely gracious in stating that you did not want the United States to be "unfair". Although CEOS limited its assessment to the fe

d with a Senior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein). At this stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if neces

solve this matter directly with you in the advance of further proceedings in Washington. Because it is clear that national policy, as determined by Main Justice, is not driving this case, the resolution of this matter is squarely, and solely, your responsibility. I know you want to do the right thing, and i

with a senior reporter at the New York Times. (In fact, I have met with that reporter and have reviewed copious notes of his conversation with Mr. Weinstein). At stage, we have no alternative but to raise our serious concerns regarding the issues Drew refused to address with the Deputy or, if necessary,

tatutes your Office had brought forth and to the application of those laws to the facts as presented, it is abundantly clear from Drew's letter that Main Justice is not directing this prosecution. In fact, CEOS plainly acknowledged that a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein would involve a "novel application"