From: Michael Wolff <rI MIM> Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2015 3:39 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: today's papers A statement from you or your reps does open in up in the U=S. Is the Times or WSJ calling you for comment? On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Micha=l Wolff < > ' wrote: Probably. Issue is how much this=is spreading to US, or if it is still remains mostly British tabloid story= <=r> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:08 AM, jeffrey E. <=pan dir="ltr"><[email protected] <[email protected]» wrote: if she is the spokesperson it will ratchet u= the attention thoughts/? On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:03 AM, M=chael Wolff < ' .=om> > wrote: quote c ass= gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:lpx=ttccc solid;padding-left:lex"> I think that is a reasonably=good approach. I might make the central point that court documents are a b=ck door way to make protected libelous allegations. Plaintiffs in pursuit =f settlements can wildly and improbably allege anything they want--the med=a then can repeat this without any obligation to verify. I would add this =s particular true of the British tabloid press, and in particular, the Dai=y Mail and its campaign against Prince Andrew. Then issue the emphatic den=al. On Sat,=Jan 3, 2015 at 9:55 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected]> wrote: kathy4=pan> ruemmler former white house counsel and good buddy=, is suggesting she responds on my behalf to the press inquires. ? t=oughts? On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Michael Wolff < » wrote: Can you give me time middle of the month and=schedule Gates? Obviously, no time like now to deal with this. And this wi=l be a game-changing rebuttal. <=iv class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 6:19 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: whoops Fo=warded message From: Ian Osbor=e < EFTA_R1_00121824 EFTA01791592