From: ' (USANYS)" To: ' Cc: (USANYS)" Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 15:36:43 +0000 Attachments: 010420_Epstein_Touhy_Initial_Letter_to_Kaplan.docx; Redline_to_010420_Epstein_Touhy_Initial_Letter to_Kaplan.docx SANYS)" Thanks, all. The changes sound good to me. Please find attached an updated version incorporating edit and nit. I'll send this out on Monday unless folks have any further changes. M , please let me know if I should hold off until you've checked in with Robbie. Thanks, From: (USANYS) Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2020 8:31 AM To: Cc: (USANYS) (USANYS) > Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests (USANYS) I defer to you two on tone. One nit—the letter switches between DOJ and Department. I think Department is the more formal. On Jan 3, 2020, at 8:49 PM, wrote: Thanks very much for drafting this, and I think generally it looks great. My only small thought would near the end, in the penultimate paragraph, where I'd suggest replacing the first two sentences with (something like): "My understanding is that you may intend to make a formal written request pursuant to the above-described regulations. [If you choose to submit .. .]" I say that only because the current language makes it sound like they were supposed to submit something in writing, or that they otherwise erred, when in fact what they actually asked for was just an explanation of the appropriate form in which to make a formal request—which they can do consistent with the regulations set forth in the letter. Does that sound alright? And of course on any of these I also entirely defer to M. thanks again, From: (USANYS) Sent: Friday, January 03, 2020 12:55 To: EFTA00084957