Office of Professional Responsibility

In January, the Justice Department announced it had opened a probe into whether there were possible misconduct by prosecutors in the case.

The investigations by DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility remains pending.

The DOJ inquiry could bump up against the New York investigation, which is being led by the Southern District of New York's Public Corruption Unit.

Now, again, I ask you, why was the Public Corruptions Unit involved and nobody in the public sphere ever got nailed? I'm going to tell you exactly what I think, okay? And you know me, I don't do too much of the diving into the deep end of the conspiracy pool.

None of you should be.

Nan, one of you fools should be, and all of you should lose your pensions.

In the years following the Florida FBI probe, several lawyers who represented Epstein survivors as well as private investigator filed complaints with the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, claiming that Epstein's case may have gone off the rails because he improperly influenced federal prosecutors.

That's the core of the issue, okay? That's what we're talking about.

The defendant itself has conceded that this was not discretionary judgment.

For example, during the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska stated, "Letting a well-connected billionaire get away with child rape and international sex trafficking isn't poor judgment.

It's a disgusting failure." G, the FBI violated its own mandatory non-discretionary policies and protocols.

That disgusting failure resulted from the FBI's negligence and its failure to follow mandatory policy and protocol about how to handle CSAM sexual abuse and trafficking investigations.

The defendant itself has conceded that this was not discretionary judgment.

For example, during the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska stated, "Letting a well-connected billionaire get away with child rape and international sex trafficking isn't poor judgment.

It's a disgusting failure." G, the FBI violated its own mandatory non-discretionary policies and protocols.

That disgusting failure resulted from the FBI's negligence and its failure to follow mandatory policy and protocol about how to handle CSAM sexual abuse and trafficking investigations.

In a case involving alleged violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act, filed by Epstein abuse survivors, this court explained that those letters misled the victims to believe that the federal prosecution was still a possibility, and that it was material omission for the government to suggest that the victims, that they have patience relative to an investigation that which had already bound itself to not prosecute.

In its 2020 report regarding federal authorities' handling of the Epstein investigation, the United States Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility likewise found that the letters sent to the victims by the FBI risk misleading victims about the status of federal investigations.

Victims relied on the FBI's statements and relied on the FBI to continue to investigate Epstein, as the FBI said it would.

For example, victim Courtney Wilde received one of the January 10, 2008 FBI letters.

When the Epstein negotiations began, Sanchez began working for Epstein's defense team, a fact that should have triggered immediate recusal or at the very least a disclosure to internal ethics officials.

The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility later concluded that Menchel should have disclosed the prior relationship, a gentle bureaucratic phrasing that belies how serious the conflict was.

A prosecutor's impartiality must be unimpeachable.

Even the perception of bias can undermine a case.

In the memo, she proposed a 60-count indictment of Epstein on sex trafficking charges.

Now you see why it was killed? Does it all make sense to you now? Now that you find out who Menschel really is? Now look at me with a straight face and tell me that there's not a coverup in play.

A subsequent probe by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, OPR, later found that its child exploitation division in Washington reviewed Villafana's materials, offered to work with her, and called the memo exhaustive and well done.

Well, I wonder why they were stopped from doing that.