Alleged DOJ interference and delayed review in Jeffrey Epstein prosecution

oo KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP role. They said they would only advise on an abuse of discretion standard. Making the outcome a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, in response to the February 25 e-mail, which attempted to establish a schedule to limit the entire review process (the defense has repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with the investigation and would therefore seek higher review), Mr. Lefkowitz e-mailed Mr. Acosta directly. On February 29, 2008, Mr. Sloman responded to Mr. Lefkowitz’s e-mail to Mr. Acosta, stating that Mr. Sloman was acting out of frustration, but “[p]lease be assured that it has not, and never has been, this Office’s intent to interfere or restrict the *review process” for either Mr. Epstein or CEOS. I leave it to you and CEOS to figure out how best to proceed and will await the results of that process.” As stated above, CEOS determined that it would not review many of the defense’s objections and as to the remainder of those objections, its review would be limited (contrary to Mr. Acosta’s assurances), which left the need, supplemented by the defense’s subsequent request, for a more thorough review of critical issues by others at the Department of Justice. Mr. Sloman’s re-imposition of the (albeit modestly extended) timetable was an obvious attempt, in violation of his February 29 agreement, to thwart the request made by the defense to the Deputy Attorney general, to complete the review process that Mr. Acosta had promised. 11. “DELAY.” Mr. Sloman’s Letter: e In a section entitled “Delay,” Mr. Sloman states that “the SDFL again agreed to accommodate Epstein’s request to appear in state court for plea and sentencing on January 4, 2008.” Id., p. 3. The Truth: e Curiously, Mr. Sloman fails to mention correspondence from the U.S. Attorney stating that delay of that date would be “inevitable” as the defense has raised “serious questions” about the propriety of the prosecution. Strikingly, in that same section, Mr. Sloman claims that “the Agreement did not contemplate a staggered ‘plea and sentencing,” despite quoting, three sentences earlier, from the Agreement’s staggered requirement that Epstein plead and be sentenced by October 26, and “begin serving his sentence not later than January 4, 2008.” We are, like most attorneys seeking Department review, without access to the USAO prosecution summaries or other submissions to the Department. Given the substantial issues that have been raised in this and other submissions, we request that you conduct a de novo review that goes beneath the face of any conclusions being advocated by the USAO; instead, we seek a review that is based on the transcripts of witness testimony themselves so that the reviewer can HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012180