From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> To: Michael Wolff Subject: Re: Some thoughts Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 23:50:38 +0000 when you are away , why don't you think of an outline so we can discuss On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Michael Wolff < > wrote: An interesting predicament... A) The status-quo is to your liking; B) By advising Gates, you run the risk of upending the status quo, causing both upset to yourself and to Gates. Any connection of you to Gates generates at minimum eyebrow raising coverage, aimed at Gates as much as you, or, possibly, a shit storm. The connection might not be made, but also might be made at any time; chances of the connection being made rise proportionally with your continuing involvement with Gates. C) You can bet on the possibility of not being connected and hedge by putting crisis people in place and having them ready to respond if and when the connection is made--much goes awry in these situations in the gap between exposure and getting competent people to deal with the exposure. D) You can out yourself. You can do it in a way that tries to preserve as much as possible of the status quo--for instance, Gates referencing you in some way and saying something positive about the importance of your contribution; or you giving an interview to a dull financial journalist, with positive comments from Gates, i.e. not hiding anything, but putting it on the record as undramatically as possible. But it is also likely that this will just provide the opening for the shit storm anyway. On the other hand, you can try to define a new normal by redefining yourself--the JE we don't know--someone different enough from the past press that the story becomes that much more complicated and, hence, that much more difficult to slap a label on. E) Unless you are luckier than you should plan on being, the status-quo is lost. F) Is the Gates involvement worth that? Here is one unique approach which I think I can offer: I believe t