From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> To: Michael Wolff Subject: Re: Following up Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:12:38 +0000 lets meet when you are back. thanks, On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Michael Wolff < > wrote: Here's what I am thinking about... The goal is to shift the story--to reintroduce you. If I write from the point of view of knowing you, than that removes the notion that there's an examination or investigation or, implicitly, something negative involved with you getting press. Quite the opposite, the bias is that there is something positive--and unexpected. So, we get to address and defuse all the issues that might otherwise be the subject of an expose, without making them the point. The only way someone else could have a pretext to write about you is because of scandal or now Gate's relationship to you and your relationship to scandal. But if I write about you as a friend, then the justification has to be that there is another dimension to the story. Also, if I do it, other people will tend not to do it, because the story has been claimed, and I'm a prominent enough voice that mostly other writers won't want to follow me. I think the best way to approach it is on three different levels: a) Why Gates would find you so interesting and valuable—obviously talk to Gates about this; b) My friendship with you--how we met; ten years of knowing you; our chats; and the ways in which that shows you to be inherently unique and interesting; c) Your troubles--but only as a foreign counterpoint to what makes you unique and interesting and valuable to Gates (otherwise, what makes you unique gets written about as the weird counterpoint to the troubles, which become the baseline). I would still say if you are happy with the way things are, then no attention is the best attention; but if you want to continue with Gates, then you do have to get out in front. For me, it would be easy to do this and enjoyable. And for you this is a particu