DOJ-OGR-00021308.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page136 of 258
SA-134
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 134 of 348

federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case.”¹⁶⁸ Lefkowitz alluded to the possibility of seeking further review of the matter by the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General, should the defense be unable to “resolve this matter directly with” Acosta.

Acosta declined the request to respond personally and directed Lefkowitz to communicate with the “trial team.” That same day, Sloman sent Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further communication about the case be made to Villafaña or her immediate supervisor, and reiterating that Acosta would not respond personally to counsel’s email or calls. Sloman noted that the USAO had “bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider” Epstein’s objections, but “these objections have finally been exhausted.” Sloman advised that the USAO would terminate the NPA unless Epstein complied with all of its terms by the close of business on June 2, 2008.

B. May – June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General

Also on May 19, 2008, Starr and Whitley co-authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip asking for review “of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter.”¹⁶⁹ In the letter, they acknowledged that CEOS had recently completed “a very limited review” of the Epstein case, but contended that “full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department.” They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein was “unwarranted,” and that “the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the [NPA] are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor’s responsibilities.” They followed up with a second letter on May 27, 2008, in which they asserted “the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws” and “the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal laws . . . to a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton” required Departmental review. On this latter point, they argued that Epstein “entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton,” and that there was “little doubt” that the USAO “never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein were just another ‘John.’” This was the first defense submission mentioning Epstein’s connection to President Clinton and raising the insinuation that the federal involvement in the investigation was due to politics.

In the May 27, 2008 letter to the Deputy Attorney General, Starr and Whitley used the existing June 2, 2008 deadline for the entry of Epstein’s guilty plea to argue that it made the need for review of the case “all the more exigent.” John Roth, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General who was handling the matter, instructed the USAO to rescind the deadline, and on May 28, 2008, Sloman notified Lefkowitz that the USAO had postponed the deadline pending completion of the review by the Deputy Attorney General’s office.¹⁷⁰ Meanwhile, the Criminal

¹⁶⁸ Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, defendants are permitted to depose victims, and Epstein’s counsel utilized that procedure aggressively and expansively to conduct sworn interviews of multiple victims, including victims who were not part of the state prosecution, to learn information about the federal investigation.

¹⁶⁹ In addition to having served as U.S. Attorney in two different districts, Whitley had served as Acting Associate Attorney General, the Department’s third-highest position.

¹⁷⁰ On May 28, 2008, Attorney General Mukasey was in Miami for unrelated events and had lunch at the USAO with Acosta and other senior managers. OPR found no indication that the Epstein matter was discussed.

108

DOJ-OGR-00021308