From: Subject: RE: Material Witness PA Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:10:08 +0000 Can you discuss with the attache whether that is a normal approach (refusing to proceed because lack of predication)? All we want to do is ask some questions — do they really refuse to permit that, in an interview that would be happening regardless? Also, before doing that, someone should go back to the Nygaard team and confirm that there is nothing more to say. (I don't have the specifics of what we've already said, so I can't do it — but if you want me to handle let me know.) From: Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 9:02 AM To: Subject: FW: Material Witness PA See below on the MLAT. The only issue for you is the Nygard one I raised briefly earlier this week — the Home Office doesn't think we're predicated on Nygard, and unless we provide further specifics about Andrew's knowledge of or involvement in criminal conduct in that case, they are not going to process that aspect of the MLAT. I take it from our conversation that there is no more info to provide. If so, can we tell them we are withdrawing our request as it pertains to Nygard and only asking them to proceed on Epstein? From: Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 8:58 AM To: Cc: Subject: FW: Material Witness PA Here is my email and the UKCA response. I also had a conversation with Dawn Browne about this to discuss the way forward. Just as a reminder, they are waiting on any additional information you have on Nygard. If we have given them all we have, then we can just say this. They think the facts on that matter are pretty thin. With regard to the voluntary interview issue, Dawn explained in more detail why they have been looking for us to exhaust all avenues for voluntary cooperation. They expect that once they approve the MLA and refer it to the police that the Blackfords will file a judicial review action. In that action, they believe Blackfords will claim that the Home Office failed to follow its internal guidelin