HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012169.jpg

—_, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP stringent conditions—which Mr. Weinstein could only have learned from FAUSA Sloman, AUSA Villafana or United States Attorney Acosta himself. 46. AUSA Weinstein then asked why Mr. Epstein should ... be treated differently than anyone else. Mr. Thomas apparently stated that he understood that there was evidence that the women had lied about their ages. AUSA Weinstein replied that this was not a defense and that Mr. Thomas should not believe “the spin” of Mr. Epstein’s “high-priced attorneys.” Indeed, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that the USAO was very concerned about a Palm Beach editorial that questioned whether Mr. Epstein would receive a rich man’s justice. AUSA Weinstein then stated that, in fact, Mr. Epstein “doesn’t have a defense.” 47, Mr. Epstein’s attorneys learned of the call and complained to the USAO. Counsel for Mr. Epstein then had an in-person meeting with FAUSA Sloman and United States Attorney Acosta describing these leaks to the New York Times. During Mr. Thomas’ next call to the USAO, made two weeks later, AUSA Weinstein “admonished” him (in the words of Mr. Thomas) for disclosing the contents of their prior conversation to the defense, and strongly “reminded” Mr. Thomas that AUSA Weinstein’s prior comments about Mr. Epstein had only been “hypothetical” in nature. That claim is sheer nonsense: AUSA Weinstein had disclosed specific details of Mr. Epstein’s case, including plea terms proposed by the defense, as revealed based on Mr. Thomas’s own contemporaneous hand-written notes. 48. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Sloman wrote to the defense that Mr. Thomas was given, pursuant to his request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes.” See Tab 37, February 27, 2008 Email from J. Sloman. Again, that claim was utterly false; Mr. Thomas’s contemporaneous hand-written notes, reviewed by Jay Lefkowitz, confirm that the USAO had violated settled Department policy and ethical rules by providing case-specific information about the Department’s legal theories and plea negotiations. Conclusion We bring these difficult and delicate matters of misconduct to your attention not to require any disciplinary action or review by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Although we have been told that some of this misconduct has been self-reported (only after we raised these complaints in writing), we feel confident that not all the facts were adequately presented. Rather, we believe that they are highly relevant to your decision whether to authorize a federal prosecution in this case. This pattern of overzealous prosecutorial activity strongly suggests improper motives in targeting Jeffrey Epstein, not because of his actions (which are more appropriately the subject of state prosecution), but, rather, because of who he is and who he knows. We also bring this pervasive pattern of misconduct to your attention because we believe it taints any ongoing federal prosecution. The misconduct pervades the evidence in this case. The offers of financial inducement to witnesses, improperly encouraged by the government, make their potential testimony suspect. The reliance on tainted evidence gathered by the state will require a careful sorting out of poisonous fruits. 10 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012169