EFTA00013543

From: To: Subject: Re: Epstein Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:11:19 +0000 Importance: Normal Do u think Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld • Fro To: Sen : e ec • Subject: RE: Epstein Yes! I originally nominated Bert, and then Jay asked if he could have a list of people from which to choose. lists of acceptable people (including two people from Podhurst) and he said "Well, we probably should just The problem only started when Bert sent a laundry list of questions that he and the firm's conflicts counsel started trying to set up a conference call. You then raised the Special Master issue, and I agreed that was not involved and there was radio silence as they started communicating only with you. We exchanged stick with Bert." had and we best. Then From Sen • :43 AM To: Sub . . 1 question: page 2, 3rd par. states "since mr. Ocariz had been told that you concurred in his selection ... I informed (him) of the office's decision to use a special master.. ." I'm a little confused - did Jay originally concur with Ocariz? --------- ---------- --- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld O Fro To: Cc: Sen. ue 'ec Subject: RE: Epstein I am out today, but I will start pulling everything together tomorrow. We don't have transcripts of all of the state interviews, but we have audio or videotapes of all of them. I drafted the attached letter, which I would like to send to Jay. «071211 Ltr to Lefkowitz.pdf» EFTA00013543 From: Se • • PM To: Cc: Subjec : ps ein In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence_i _I've asked to conduct a de novo review of the evidence underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided =with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of the 302s , state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information thatMan review a.s.a.p.? Thanks, EFTA00013544