From: To: "- Subject: Re: wbtw Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 22:39:59 +0000 (USANYS)" Great. I was just on the phone w/ about another case. Told him we could use another person and prefer M. He said he'll talk to and let us know, so that seems like a good sign. From: Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 6:33 PM To: (USANYS) < > Subject: RE: wbtw Definitely has bandwidth, he has been telling me he is looking for work. From: (USANYS) Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 6:29 PM To: Subject: Re: wbtw Sounds good. Any sense of bandwidth? If he's not very busy, could use that to pitch him to the chiefs. From: ann Sent: Monday, June 1, 20206:18 PM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: wbtw Hey- That sounds good to me, thanks. I think it makes sense to discuss our theory of the case, both on the wbtw scheme and on the possible PPE scam, just to make sure everyone is on the same page as we continue reviewing. In particular, now that is openly taking a salary, we should discuss materiality—I don't think those issues are prohibitive at all, but it might be helpful to make sure everyone is attuned to those issues as we review. In terms of staffing, can we add M? I know he'd want to do it. Apologies that I haven't been working on this case since we moved to remote work—I reviewed emails before we left the office, but haven't continued since then. In terms of bandwidth, Epstein/Rikers stuff has been taking up my time, although I'm hopeful that will relent a bit over the summer (or that someone up the chain will get tired of reading memos?). More immediately, I should be able to dig into email review probably starting next weekish. Regardless, don't be shy about passing things off to me if you think of things we should be doing that I'm not spotting. From: (USANYS) < > Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 5:01 PM To: Subject: wbtw EFTA00019603