Re:
[{"sender": "Ken Starr", "recipients": ["J <jeevacation@gmail.com>"], "timestamp": "Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 11:24 AM", "subject": "Re:", "body": "\"Sweetheart deal! \" So goes the critique of the resolution of a long-ago case involving our former client -- and now-friend -- Jeffrey Epstein. The critique is profoundly misplaced, supported neither by the law or the facts, nor by the structure of our constitutional republic. To the contrary, Jeffrey was subjected to an unprecedented federal intrusion into a quintessentially local criminal matter in south Florida. His offense to the social order -- involving sex for hire -- was entirely a matter entrusted to laws of the several States, not the federal government. His conduct -- a classic state offense --was being treated exactly that way by able, honest prosecutors in Palm Beach County, but the overweening federal government intruded where it did not belong. And now, over ten years after the fact, the current assault on federal decision-makers at the time, including now-Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta (then the United States Attorney in south Florida), condemns the 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 journalists and politicians at federal officials from over a decade ago -- including the highest levels of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. .\n\nHere are the key facts: Jeffrey Epstein, a successful self-made businessman with no prior criminal history whatever, engaged in illegal conduct that amounts to solicitation of prostitution. That was wrong, and it was reasonably viewed as a violation of Florida state law. Although no coercion, violence, alcohol, drugs and the"}, {"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 connected to the former President and became a proxy for the considerable anger at high levels of the Federal government that still surrounded Clinton. Likewise now, one reason to revive the story is that it is a way to tara Trump administration official, who, in the normal course of his duties, happened to deal with the case."}, {"sender": "Matthew Hiltzik", "recipients": ["Michael Woltt", "Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>"], "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 that he did something wrong"}]