HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019225.jpg

Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 2 By way of background, we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEOS would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate and, in his words, “fair.” That is not what occurred. Instead, CEOS has now acknowledged that we had raised “many compelling arguments” against the USAO’s suggested “novel application” of federal law in this matter. Even so, CEOS concluded, in minimalist fashion, that “we do not see anything that says to us categorically that a federal case should not be brought” and that the U.S. Attorney “would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein” thus delegating back to Mr. Acosta the decision of whether federal prosecution was warranted (emphasis added). Rather than assessing whether prosecution would be appropriate, CEOS, using a low baseline for its evaluation, determined only that “it would not be impossible to prove .. .” certain allegations made against Mr. Epstein. The CEOS review failed to address the significant problems involving the appearance of impermissible selectivity that would necessarily result from a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein. We respect CEOS’s conclusion that its authority to review “misconduct” issues was precluded by Criminal Division practice. We further respect CEOS’s view that it understood its mission as significantly limited. Specifically, the contemplated objective was to determine whether the USAO would be abusing its discretion by bringing a federal prosecution rather than making its own de novo recommendations on the appropriate reach of federal law. However, we respectfully submit that a full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department. In an effort to inform you of the nature of the federal investigation against Mr. Epstein, we summarize the facts and circumstances of this matter below. The two base-level concerns we hold are that (1) federal prosecution of this matter is not warranted based on the purely-local conduct and the unprecedented application of federal statutes to facts such as these and (2) the actions of federal authorities are both highly questionable and give rise to an appearance of substantial impropriety. The issues that we have raised, but which have not yet been addressed or resolved by the Department, are more than isolated allegations of professional mistakes or misconduct. These issues, instead, affect the appearance and administration of criminal justice with profound consequences beyond the resolution in the matter at hand. * , * * _ In a precedent-shattering investigation of Jeffrey Epstein that raises important policy questions—and serious issues as to the fair and honorable enforcement of federal law—the USAO in Miami is considering extending federal law beyond the bounds of precedent and reason. Federal prosecutors stretched the underlying facts in ways that raise fundamental questions of basic professionalism. Perhaps most troubling, the USAO in Miami, as a condition of deferring prosecution, required a commingling of substantive federal criminal law with a proposed civil remedy engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019225