Re:
[{"sender": "Ken Starr", "recipients": ["J <jeevacation@gmail.com>"], "timestamp": "Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 11:24 AM", "subject": "Re:", "body": "Here goes:\n\n\"Sweetheart deal! \" So goes the critique of the resolution of a long-ago case involving our former client -- and\nnow-friend -- Jeffrey Epstein. The critique is profoundly misplaced, supported neither by the law or the facts,\nnor by the structure of our constitutional republic. To the contrary, Jeffrey was subjected to an unprecedented\nfederal intrusion into a quintessentially local criminal matter in south Florida. His offense to the social order --\ninvolving sex for hire -- was entirely a matter entrusted to laws of the several States, not the federal\ngovernment. His conduct -- a classic state offense --was being treated exactly that way by able, honest\nprosecutors in Palm Beach County, but the overweening federal government intruded where it did not\n\nbelong. And now, over ten years after the fact, the current assault on federal decision-makers at the time,\nincluding now-Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta (then the United States Attorney in south Florida), condemns\nthe federal authorities for not going far enough.\n\nThe critics are entirely wrong. Neither the facts nor the law support the misguided criticisms being leveled by\njournalists and politicians at federal officials from over a decade ago -- including the highest levels of the\nJustice Department in Washington, D.C. .\n\nHere are the key facts: Jeffrey Epstein, a successful self-made businessman with no prior criminal history\nwhatever, engaged in illegal conduct that amounts to solicitation of prostitution. That was wrong, and it was\nreasonably viewed as a violation of Florida state law. Although no coercion, violence, alcohol, drugs and the\nlike were involved, the unsavory facts were carefully assessed by experienced state prosecutors who"}, {"sender": "J", "recipients": [], "timestamp": "Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 11:28 AM", "subject": "Re:", "body": "thoughts."}, {"sender": "Michael Wolff", "recipients": [], "timestamp": "Dec 15, 2018, at 12:03 PM", "subject": "Re:", "body": "Seems very good. Is there reason or opportunity here to evoke JE's Clinton connection? He had been publicly\nconnected to the former President and became a proxy for the considerable anger at high levels of the Federal\ngovernment that still surrounded Clinton. Likewise now, one reason to revive the story is that it is a way to tara\nTrump administration official, who, in the normal course of his duties, happened to deal with the case."}, {"sender": "Matthew Hiltzik", "recipients": ["Michael Wolff", "Jeffrey Epstein [jeevacation@gmail.com]", "Kathy Ruemmler", "Darren Indyke"], "timestamp": "12/15/2018 6:40:52 PM", "subject": "Re:", "body": "Also think there should be a line in there somewhere which clearly confirms that JE understands and recognizes\nthat he did something wrong"}]