From: Igl IME> Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] from: Epstein's home Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 19:17:52 +0000 Importance: Normal / The New York Times; re: evidence seized from From: Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 2:02 PM To: Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] from: / The New York limes; re: evidence seized from Epstein's home I think its best to just not comment. Id have to look up what our policy guide says on retention and id rather not get into it with him. From: Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 1:42 PM To: Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] from: / The New York Times; re: evidence seized from Epstein's home I think the USAO is trying to humor him. Is it something we'd be able to answer in general, or you'd like me to just avoid it altogether. From: Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 1:39:41 PM To: Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] from: / The New York limes; re: evidence seized from Epstein's home Why do we even need to provide him with that information? We had no comment on the fact check request yesterday, should this be any different? LMK if you agree or disagree? Happy to speak if necessary. Thanks From: Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 1:28 PM To: Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] from: / The New York limes; re: evidence seized from Epstein's home Seamus - see below? From: Blase, (USANYS) Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 1:22:10 PM To: Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Fwd: [EXTERNAL] from: Epstein's home >; / The New York Times; re: evidence seized from Hey guys, would you be okay with us referring Colin to you on some of the process questions below? I think if you'd be able to give him the default retention policies for seized evidence in a criminal case, that would suffice. EFTA00161819