From: ' r To: "- r )" <1 Cc: ' Subject: RE: memo Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 19:56:07 +0000 Sure, I'll cut that and see if I= wants to add it back in. Will send now, cc'ing you guys. Thanks! From: Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:55 PM To: Cc: Subject: RE: memo < > > Thank you for having that discussion, and for drafting (hilarious — though ultimately probably helpful — that she wanted you to draft their views rather than just sending us a paragraph). My only thought is that given the change in our views of obstructive conduct (particularly with respect to destruction of materials) since they reviewed the Update Memo, would it be more straightforward to highlight just the large number of underage victims (and not the more outdated obstruction elements, as presumably many trafficking victims in other cases also conceal the schemes from police, and we don't ordinarily charge them)? Other than that, no additional thoughts, and thanks again. From: Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 15:48 To: Cc: Subject: RE: memo > I spoke with =. Bottom line, she thinks it's a close call between making take a felony plea and declining to prosecute, but she ultimately comes down in favor of a felony plea. She does not think we should charge with sex trafficking. asked me to send her and I= a draft of the summary of their views that we plan to send up to the brass. Below is what I'd propose: Our Office's Human Trafficking Coordinators have reviewed the prosecution team's Update Memo as well as submission, and are aware of the details of the Epstein investigation. In the Coordinators' experience, our Office ordinarily would decline to prosecute a victim-participant like absent certain aggravating factors, such as the use of violence by the victim-participant on others, or the victim-perpetrator continuing to run a sex trafficking operation in the absence of her abuser. Because those aggravating factors are not present here, the Coordinators believe it is a