Prosecutor in Trump‑linked Epstein trial previously rebuked in a sex‑assault case, with US Attorney General’s office allegedly aware
Summary
The passage hints at a possible conflict of interest or cover‑up involving a prosecutor tied to a high‑profile Epstein case and a senior Justice Department official. It provides specific roles (prosec A prosecutor involved in the Epstein trial had earlier been reprimanded in a separate sex‑assault ca US Attorney (or senior Justice Department official) Acosta was reportedly aware of that prior rebu
This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.
View Source CollectionTags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
Subject: Epstein Evidence status
From: To: , ' Subject: Epstein Evidence status Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 02:16:47 +0000 Importance: Normal Thank you for putting this together I counted 72 items total. 32 from NYC and 40 from USVI. According to your spreadsheet there are only 9 items outstanding: 24331 SSD from DVR being processed by HQ 24362 and 24364 Both Macs from USVI that need blacklight run 24376 - 24380, 24395 are all RAID that need rebuilding. Everything else is complete. Is that accurate, did I miss anything? Also, on the relativity file dump are you still anticipating it being complete in 1 to 1 and a 1/2 weeks? SSA- FBI New York On Jul 6, 2020 8:21 Pm, "a> wrote: Greetings, Attached you will find an Excel spreadsheet with the status of all the digital evidence I have for the Epstein case. You will note that there were several non-evidentiary items included to try to close the discrepancy that the US Attorney's Office is concerned about. Keep in mind, my status of the other day was only the
From: '
From: ' To:' 1111 Cc: ' >, Subject: Re: RE: Epstein search warrant documents Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 19:13:54 +0000 Importance: Normal and I just spoke. We are going to down and take a look at all digital evidence and get this squared away. I'm going to work on getting a large enough hard drive to dump the evidence on to get it to SDNY. From: Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:39 PM To: Cc: Subject: Fwd: RE: Epstein search warrant documents I know you already got this, just wanted to confer with you as to what is going on with all this. Feel like you, me, and need to chat and see what is what. I'm thinking that this started before the case took a turn yet is still moving in the same direction. In other words, do we really need to be doing this? Seems to me that I should be taking all my marching orders from and M. NY CART Coordinator Senior Forensic Examiner cell desk From: (USANYS)" Forwarded message Date: Jun 17, 2020 2:28 PM Subject: RE: Epstein search war
(USANYS)'
From: (USANYS)' To: " CRM" II II Cc: " (CRM)" Subject: R -: n epee ent: Prince n rew: e sa to to to Epstein investigators 'straining relations between UK and America' Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:58:39 +0000 lane-Images: image001.png Thanks, The below looks good to us. On the penalties: Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423 (transportation of minors) — maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422 (coercion and enticement) — maximum penalty is 5 years' imprisonment Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591 (sex trafficking) — maximum penalty is 40 years' imprisonment From: (CRM) Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 5:49 AM (USANYS) C (CRM) Subject: RE: Independent: Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators 'straining relations between UK and America' We also just got the following questions on the new MLA request. I have given preliminary responses (as noted), but want to confirm with you. I. Has the witne
Subject: RE: Epstein
Subject: RE: Epstein Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:26:56 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: Signed_Plea_Agreement.pdf; Final_Addendum.pdf Here is the signed agreement and an addendum. Please note that it has a confidentiality clause. Thanks. SEMI Subject: Re: Epstein Ok thx. Would you send me your last proposed nonpros with them with the 2255 language? Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:48:48 2007 Subject: FW: Epstein This is the first that I have heard about another attempt to meet with someone in Washington. I thought I would give you a heads up. Hope all is well, Andy. EFTA00214817 Subject: Fw: Epstein Can u send Jay the proposed letter and redact the names? Thx, Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld Original Message From: Jay Lefkowitz <[email protected]> Sent: Wed Nov 28 16:29:09 2007 Subject: Re: Epstein I received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of your letter, given the fact that we spoke last week and had what I thought was a prod
Alleged British Intelligence (Tavistock) and LaRouche Network Ties to 1950s Pornography and 1970s Anti‑Nuclear Protest Briefings
Alleged British Intelligence (Tavistock) and LaRouche Network Ties to 1950s Pornography and 1970s Anti‑Nuclear Protest Briefings The passage links a historic British intelligence institute (Tavistock) to U.S. political activist Lyndon LaRouche’s private intelligence network and claims they briefed state police on a 1970s anti‑nuclear protest. It provides specific names and a concrete event, offering a potential investigative angle (e.g., archival search for Tavistock‑related projects, LaRouche intelligence files, police briefing records). However, the claims are vague, lack dates, documents, or transaction details, and the Tavistock‑pornography connection is a long‑standing conspiracy trope, reducing novelty and verifiability. Key insights: Paul Krassner allegedly recruited by the Tavistock Institute in the early 1950s for pornographic satire.; Lyndon LaRouche’s private intelligence network reportedly briefed a state police lieutenant before a 1970s Seabrook nuclear plant protest.; The U.S. Labor Party’s newsletter was allegedly subscribed to by police departments nationwide.
The US Attorney's office filed a response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for reconsideration regardin...
The US Attorney's office filed a response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for reconsideration regarding the disclosure of juror names, arguing that the defendant's request for early disclosure is not justified and that the court's current plan for juror name disclosure is sufficient. The government contends that the defendant is seeking extra time to conduct research on prospective jurors without a valid reason. The government's response cites relevant case law and the court's previous orders to support its position.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.