HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139.jpg

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP John Roth, Esq. June 19, 2008 Page 4 It thus is especially troubling that the USAO has not provided us with the transcript of Ms. federal interview, nor the substance of the interviews with Ms. [J or Ms. MS nor any information generated by interviews with any of the approximately 40 alleged witnesses that the prosecution claims it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein’s guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or during plea negotiations. But we firmly believe that when the Government possesses information that goes directly to a target’s factual guilt or innocence, the target should be informed about such heartland exculpatory evidence. Most importantly, aside from whether the Department believes Brady obligates disclosure to a target of a federal investigation prior to the target’s formal accusation, no such limit should apply to a Department review. Accordingly, we request that you go beneath the face of any summary provided to you by the USAO and instead review the actual witness transcripts and FBI 302s, which are essential for you to be able to make a truly independent assessment of the strength and wisdom of any federal prosecution. After careful consideration of the record, and as much as it pains me to say this, simply do not believe federal prosecutors would have been involved at all in this matter if not for Mr. Epstein’s personal wealth and publicly-reported ties to former President Bill Clinton. A simple Internet search on Mr. Epstein reveals myriad articles and news stories about the former President’s personal relationship with Mr. Epstein, including multi-page stories in New York Magazine and Vanity Fair. Mr. Epstein, in fact, only came to the public’s attention a few years ago when he and the former President traveled for a week to Africa (using Mr. Epstein’s airplane)—a trip that received a great deal of press coverage. I cannot imagine that the USAO ever would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr. Epstein lacked this type of notoriety. That belief has been reinforced by the significant prosecutorial impropriety and misconduct throughout the course of this matter. While we describe the majority of these irregularities in another submission, two instances are particularly troubling. First, the USAO authorized the public disclosure of specific details of the open investigation to the New York Times—including descriptions of the prosecution’s theory of the case and specific terms of a plea " negotiation between the parties. Second, AUSA Villafana attempted to enrich friends and close acquaintances by bringing them business in connection with this matter. Specifically, she attempted to appoint a close personal friend’ of her live-in boyfriend to serve as an attorney- representative for the women involved in this case. It also bears mentioning that actions taken by FAUSA Sloman present an appearance of impropriety that gives us cause for concern. Mr. Sloman’s former law partner is currently pursuing a handful of $50-million lawsuits against Mr. Epstein by some of the masseuses. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139