From: Ken Starr < Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 7:53 PM To: Subject: Re: My edited version The edits look good. Basic question: &=bsp;should this be a piece authored by the entire team, or a more personal p=esentation by two or so members of the team? I drafted i= in a personal way. I like that approach. =div>Thoughts? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 16, 2018, at 12:20 PM,1 <[email protected] <mailto:jeevacation=gmail.com> wrote: with edits. - pretty good i th=nk thoughts. From: Kathy Ruemmler Subject: My edited version "Sweetheart deal!" So goes the attack on the resolution of a long-ago fe=eral investigation involving our former client -- and now-friend -- Jeffrey=Epstein. The attack is profoundly misplaced, supported neither by the=law or the facts, nor by the structure of our constitutional republic. = To the contrary, Jeffrey was subjected to an aggressive federal intrusion i=to what would typically be considered a quintessentially local criminal mat=er in south Florida. His offense — at its core, sex=al favors for hire — has long been treated as a matter en=rusted to laws of the several States, not the federal government. His=conduct — while clearly unlawful and for which he has acc=pted full responsibility — was a classic state offense an= was being treated exactly that way by able, honest prosecutors in Palm Bea=h County. Nevertheless, far from going "soft" on=the matter and without invitation from the state, the federal governme=t intervened. Ironically, now many for their own opportunistic reason= are criticizing the federal decision- makers at the time, including now-Sec=etary of Labor Alex Acosta (then the United States Attorney in south Florid=), for not going far enough. <=font> The critics are wrong on the facts and the=law. <=ont size="4">Here are the true key facts: Jeffrey Epstein, a succes=ful self-made businessman with no prior criminal history whatsoever, engage= in illegal conduct that amounts to solicitation of pr