EFTA00206393¶
Here is what we propose to say, but wanted to run this past you:¶
As you know from your communications with the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs, the defense in this case asked for an independent DOJ review of all facts, circumstances and allegations surrounding this prosecution. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General did in fact review the case, which is not uncommon, and determined that no misconduct occurred and that prosecutorial discretion in the case appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.¶
The italicized wording is new but 100% accurate.¶
Please advise ASAP – time is of the essence.¶
Thanks -¶
From: (SMO)¶
To: [ ] , [ ] (USAFLS);¶
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:49 PM¶
Subject: RE: Epstein — DOJ letter to defense¶
Adding Tracy and Jess. I think you are correct.¶
Here is what I sent to her (per your previous email)¶
Thanks for your patience. I checked into your two questions on who was the USA’s boss and why the “defense was allowed to negotiate with Main Justice”, as you put it. Here’s what I have for you – The Office of the Deputy Attorney General did review the case, which is not uncommon, and determined that prosecutorial discretion in the case appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. (Off the record, note “review” would be the appropriate word, not “negotiate”.) In terms of a boss, the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices report through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (at the time, Mark Filip was the DAG.)¶
EFTA00206394¶
Can we make this letter public? I don’t think so, but wanted to check with you.¶
This would put to rest some of her questions.¶
<<080623 DAG Ltr to Lefkowitz and Starr.pdf>>¶
Should there be a final sentence such as the following?¶
Because the matter remains pending in court, it would be inappropriate at this time to provide additional comment on the merits of the motion.¶
Just a thought.¶