In this case, Comey ignored those rules to editorialize about what he called carelessness by Clinton and her aides in handling classified information, a statement not grounded in any position in law. He recklessly speculated that Clinton’s email system could have been hacked, even while admitting he had no evidence that it was. This conjecture, which has been the subject of much debate and heated allegations, puts Clinton in the impossible position of having to prove a negative in response.

In several instances, Comey made assertions that are outside the authority of the FBI. He inserted himself into a long-standing bureaucratic battle between the State Department and the FBI and intelligence agencies, making claims about classification practices at the State Department that do not fall under his jurisdiction. He raised the possibility of administrative sanctions that could be taken, another decision that is not his to make — any such sanctions, if appropriate, would be decided by the State Department, not the director of the FBI.

He also substituted his judgment for that of prosecutors. Career prosecutors at Justice have been working hand in hand with FBI agents on the case, even joining the interview with Clinton. While it is hard to imagine they would have reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of charges, they deserved the ability to make that decision privately, in consultation with the FBI, rather than hear the agency’s recommendation at the same time the public did.

Comey argued that his statement was appropriate because this case was a matter of unusual public interest. But the department investigates cases involving extreme public interest all the time — suspected terrorist acts, alleged civil rights violations by police and possible crimes by financial institutions, for example. It is for precisely these situations that the rules exist, so that the department cannot speak outside the bounds of court when it does not bring charges.

Imagine a situation in which the Obama Justice Department investigates major conservative activists such as the Koch brothers for possibly violating the law, but finding no reason to bring charges, the attorney general holds a news conference to outline all of the ways in which she finds their conduct deplorable. A Republican attorney general declining to bring charges against union officials but publicly excoriating their behavior would be similarly objectionable.

In this case, Comey ignored those rules to editorialize about what he called carelessness by Clinton and her aides in handling classified information, a statement not grounded in any position in law. He recklessly speculated that Clinton’s email system could have been hacked, even while admitting he had no evidence that it was. This conjecture, which has been the subject of much debate and heated allegations, puts Clinton in the impossible position of having to prove a negative in response.

In several instances, Comey made assertions that are outside the authority of the FBI. He inserted himself into a long-standing bureaucratic battle between the State Department and the FBI and intelligence agencies, making claims about classification practices at the State Department that do not fall under his jurisdiction. He raised the possibility of administrative sanctions that could be taken, another decision that is not his to make — any such sanctions, if appropriate, would be decided by the State Department, not the director of the FBI.

He also substituted his judgment for that of prosecutors. Career prosecutors at Justice have been working hand in hand with FBI agents on the case, even joining the interview with Clinton. While it is hard to imagine they would have reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of charges, they deserved the ability to make that decision privately, in consultation with the FBI, rather than hear the agency’s recommendation at the same time the public did.

Comey argued that his statement was appropriate because this case was a matter of unusual public interest. But the department investigates cases involving extreme public interest all the time — suspected terrorist acts, alleged civil rights violations by police and possible crimes by financial institutions, for example. It is for precisely these situations that the rules exist, so that the department cannot speak outside the bounds of court when it does not bring charges.

Imagine a situation in which the Obama Justice Department investigates major conservative activists such as the Koch brothers for possibly violating the law, but finding no reason to bring charges, the attorney general holds a news conference to outline all of the ways in which she finds their conduct deplorable. A Republican attorney general declining to bring charges against union officials but publicly excoriating their behavior would be similarly objectionable.

Hillary Clinton insisted all along that none of the emails she sent or received on her private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was marked classified at the time. That was contradicted by the Director of the FBI yesterday when he claimed that a “very small number” of her emails were in fact classified at the time. The New York Times then determined that that number was just two. And now the State Department has confirmed that the two emails in question weren’t actually classified at the time, and had merely been marked incorrectly during the course of the investigation.

In yet another development which helps make clear that Clinton did nothing demonstrably wrong with her email, the two emails sent to her by her aides in 2012 were harmless in nature. Both were merely used to schedule phone calls with foreign leaders, and on their face, clearly could not have possibly been classified at the time. Sure enough, a spokesman for the State Department has confirmed that they were not classified.

This comes just hours after CBS News reported that Hillary Clinton had asked the NSA for a secure smartphone for her email immediately upon taking office as Secretary of State, and had been turned down. One by one, the details coming out are making clear that despite having spent so many months running an investigation and despite having been given full cooperation by Clinton and her team, the conclusions made by the FBI Director yesterday were far removed from the actual facts involved.

With Hillary Clinton now having been fully cleared of any potential charges, this may be a moot point in terms of the outcome; she’s off the hook and she remains the clear frontrunner in the 2016 presidential race. But these new details surfacing today make clear that the FBI Director didn’t come close to getting his facts right when he personally criticized her email usage yesterday. Here’s more on the story.

Instead, the millions of missing Bush White House emails were treated as a 24-hour or 48-hour story. It was a subject that was dutifully noted, and then the media pack quickly moved on.

Last week, the Republican National Committee threw up another roadblock, claiming it had lost four years' worth of e-mail messages by Karl Rove that were sent on a Republican Party account. Those messages, officials admitted, could include some about the United States attorneys. It is virtually impossible to erase e-mail messages fully, and the claims that they are gone are not credible.

DONALD J. TRUMP and JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,

Defendants.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:

USDC-SDNY
DOC#:
DATE FILED: 6/30/2016
No. 16-CV-4642 (RA)
ORDER AND NOTICE OF INITIAL CONFERENCE

It is hereby:

ORDERED that counsel for all parties appear for an initial status conference on

September 9, 2016 at 3:15 p.m. in Courtroom 1506 of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York,
New York.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by September 2, 2016, the parties
jointly submit to the

Court a proposed case management plan and scheduling order."

All parties must also submit a letter to the court:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by September 2, 2016, the parties submit a
joint letter, not to exceed five (5) pages, providing the following
information in separate paragraphs:

1.A brief description of the nature of the action and the principal defenses

thereto;

2. A brief explanation of why jurisdiction and venue lie in this Court. If any
party is a corporation, the letter shall state both the place of incorporation
and the principal place of business. If any party is a partnership, limited
partnership, limited liability company or trust, the letter shall state the
citizenship of each of the entity's members, shareholders, partners and/or
trustees;
3. A brief description of all contemplated and/or outstanding motions and
how such motions may affect scheduling in this matter;
4. A brief description of any discovery that has already taken place, and/or
that which will be necessary for the parties to engage in meaningful
settlement negotiations;

5. A brief description of prior settlement discussions (without disclosing the
parties' offers or settlement positions) and the prospect of settlement;
6. The estimated length of trial; and
7. Any other information that the parties believe may assist the Court in
advancing the case to settlement or trial, including, but not limited to, a
description of any dispositive issue or novel issue raised by the case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by September 2, 2016, the parties jointly submit to the
Court a proposed case management plan and scheduling order. A template for the order is
available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Abrams. The status letter and the proposed case
management plan should be filed electronically on ECF, consistent with Section 13 .1 of the
Court's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Rules & Instructions, available at
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf/ecf_rules _ 080113 .pdf.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve Defendants with a copy of this order and to file an affidavit
on ECF certifying that such service has been effectuated.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2016
New York, New York
Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

Case 1:16-cv-04642-RA Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 9


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, proceeding under a pseudonym, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP and JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendants. ))))))))) Case No.: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ---------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION
______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Jane Doe, proceeding under a pseudonym, brings this action against Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, and alleges that:
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff is an individual residing in and a citizen of the State of California.
2.

Upon information and belief, Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein each reside in this District and are citizens of the State of New York.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.

Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
4.

Defendants are citizens of the State of New York for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332

Case 1:16-cv-04642-RA Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 9

5.

This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction with respect to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as there exists complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
6.

Defendants are each subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 with proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as both defendants are residents of and/or are domiciled in this district and the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
7.

Plaintiff was subject to acts of rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and threats of death and/or serious bodily injury by the Defendants that took place at several parties during the summer months of 1994. The parties were held by Defendant Epstein at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Epstein at 9 E. 71st St. in Manhattan. During this period, Plaintiff was a minor of age 13 and was legally incapable under New York law of consenting to sexual intercourse and the other sexual contacts detailed herein. NY Penal L § 130.05(3)(a). The rapes in the first, second, and third degrees; sexual misconduct; criminal sexual acts in the first, second, and third degrees; sexual abuse in the first, second, and third degrees; and forcible touching (and, on information
Case 1:16-cv-04642-RA Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 9

Sen. Tim Kaine said he was “not surprised” by the FBI’s recommendation that Hillary Clinton should not face charges for using a homebrew email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that the bureau would not recommend that the Department of Justice file charges against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Kaine, widely rumored to be under consideration to join the ticket as Clinton’s running mate, said he has always taken the former secretary of state at her word that the email scandal would not amount to criminal activity.


“I’m not surprised. I have long believed that this was not going to be anymore than what Secretary Clinton said,” said Kaine (D-Va.), who was at a roundtable discussion on the Zika virus during Comey’s press conference and was told of the Clinton news by a reporter.

“I never believed this was going to be something in the criminal realm or even close to it. So again, I’m going to have to read what was said to comment further,” he continued. “But I have expected to get to this place where this is in the matter of lessons learned and what should future secretaries of state or officials do, but it’s not in the criminal realm.”

Kaine said he did not have any plans to campaign with Clinton in the coming weeks. He did not say whether or not he was currently being vetted as a possible vice presidential candidate, only that “the only role I’m playing is trying to help her win Virginia.”