From: To: Cc: Bcc• Subject: Fw: Draft Response to Edwards' Oct 15, 2008 letter Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:19:30 +0000 Importance: Normal What do you all think? From: To: Sent: Wed Nov 05 14:08:17 2008 Subject: RE: Draft Response to Edwards' Oct 15, 2008 letter I am not averse to completely ignoring Edwards' October 15, 2008 letter, if that is what you would prefer. From: Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:38 AM To: Cc: Subject: Re: Draft Response to Oct 15, 2008 letter Hi I am out of the office today so I can't edit the letter from my Blackberry. I hate the idea of writing yet another letter that will be attached to a pleading or quoted in the paper. I would feel more comfortable with something that says: Thank you for your letter. The Office is involved in the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein and is neither a party to nor involved in any civil suits against him. If you have any documentary evidence thatyou believe establishes a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, you can forward that evidence to AUS The Office will then conduct its own review in accordance with the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. And leave it at that. What do you all think? From: To: Cc: Sent: Tue Nov 04 10:56:20 2008 Subject: Draft Response to Edwards' Oct 15, 2008 letter Attached please find my draft response to Edwards' Oct 15, 2008 letter. Please ensure that it is factually correct, particularly with regard to what Epstein agreed to during the negotiations. Thanks. EFTA00014131