FW: Epstein

my blackberry is giving me trouble so I'm using I told lily that a state plea with jail time and sex [ ] offender status may satisfy the usa. It was a non-starter for them

Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)

Hi ■ -- I am in trial, so I just got your message.

First, it is inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without consulting with me or the investigative agencies, and it is more inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE, the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate the Ashcroft memo, the U.S. Attorney's Manual, and all of the various iterations of the victims' rights legislation. Strategically, you have started the plea negotiations as though we are in a position of weakness, anxious to make the case go away, by telling the defense that we will demand no federal conviction. We left the meeting on June 26th in a stronger position than when we entered, and your statement that a state resolution would satisfy us takes away that advantage. If you make it seem like the U.S. Attorney doesn't have faith in our investigation, Epstein has no incentive to make a deal.

Second, your discussion makes it appear that my investigation is for "show" only and completely undermines my ability to deal with Epstein's attorneys directly. In my eight years of civil practice efore the six ears I have s ent with this Office), I have litigated against attorneys far more formidable than and nd have managed to convince the Eighth, Ninth, and Federal Circuits that my legislative interpretation was correct. Your concerns about this prosecution hurting the rest of the Project Safe Childhood Program are unfounded.

My trial should end early next week. I would like to make a presentation to the U.S. Attorney, M, MI and you with our side of the investigation and a revised indictment. The presentation will address the points raised by Epstein's counsel and will convince you all of the strength of the case.

In the meantime, please direct all communications from Epstein's counsel to me.

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Hi -- My trial is over, so I now have to time to focus back on this case and our e-mail exchange. There are [ ] several points in your e-mail that I would like to address, and I also would like to address where we are in the case.

First, I wanted to address the comment about jumping the chain of command. After that concern was brought to my attention several months ago, I have tried very hard to be cognizant of the chain of command, and, as was evident at the meeting with Epstein's attorneys, [REDACTED] and I have discussed the case extensively. My original e-mail asking for everyone's input was addressed to [REDACTED], you, and [REDACTED], and [REDACTED] was cc'd. ([REDACTED] and I also have discussed the case in great detail.) The response to your e-mail was addressed only to you because I thought you would want to discuss privately our disagreement. It was addressed to [REDACTED] as well because you said that you had [REDACTED] Blackberry and it was a holiday when you would be out of the office. If there is a particular instance of violating the chain of command that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Second, the reason why I sent the original e-mail to everyone was to see if anyone had any objections to the proposed language. I waited several days to send out the e-mail to to get everyone's response. In your [ ] response, you did not raise any concerns, nor did anyone else.

you, and I all have discussed the greater flexibility of a pre-indictment plea.

The statement that I have not respected position regarding the prosecution of the case demonstrates why [ ] you hear the frustration in the tone of my e-mail. For two and a half months I have been asking about what that sttion is. I have asked for direction on whether to revise the indictment, whether there are other issues that wants addressed prior to deciding, whether there is additional investigation that needs to be done, etc. None of that direction has been forthcoming, so I am left with a grand jury, victims, and agents all demanding to know why we aren't presenting an indictment. My recollection of the original meeting with and is quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case and the State Attorney's Office's handling of it. I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time and money that would be required for an investigation. I said that I was willing to invest that time and the FBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the end and then have the Office be intimidated by the high-powered lawyers. I was assured that that would not happen. Now I feel like there is a glass ceiling that prevents me from

As far as promising the FBI that an indictment was a foregone conclusion, I don't know of any cases in the Office where an investigation has been opened with the plan NOT to indict. And I have never presented an indictment package that has resulted in a declination. I didn't treat this case any differently.

Lastly, I was not trying to "dictate" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney or anyone else. I stated that I "would like" to schedule a meeting, asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the forgotten voices of the victims in this case

EFTA00204808

should not be classified as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to foster spirited debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion. I know of other instances where a disagreement about the application of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in a call for the resignation of an AUSA who dared to challenge the executive office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights.