Epstein Secrets

with the Epstein matter began on January 2, 2008 and ended on January 7, 2008." Specifically, his contact involved five telephone conversation with Landon Thomas, a reporter for the New York Times. These conversations occurred on I) the morning of January 2, 2008, 2) the afternoon of January 2, 2008, 3) the

y. Confidential and Privileged — Attorney Work Product -9- EFTA00224644 A. The Morning ofJanuary 2, 2008. AUSA began his conversation with Mr. Thomas by explaining that he was the acting PIO for the week and that he had received Mr.Thomas's December 31, 2007 e-mail requesting an interview and ask

Palm Beach (head of the West Palm Beach branch office), after serving as the interim Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ at the request of AAG Fisher. By October 2007 Mr. would leave command were Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA the SDFL to become AG Fi her's Chief of Staffs Above M

tims." Most of these lawsuits seek S50 million in money damages" • Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein spoke about the case in great detail to Landon Thomas, a reporter with the New York nines, and revealed confidential information about she Government's allegations against Mr. Epstein. The Assistant U.

by assening that "Mr. l'homas was given, pursuant to his request, non-case specific information concerning specific federal statutes." Based on Mr. Thomas' contemporaneous notes. that assertion appears to be false. For example, Mr. Weinstein told Mr. Thomas that federal authorities believed that Mr. E

0 days to appeal the decision to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher. As you recall, you chose to forego an appeal to AAG Fisher, and instead pursued a negotiated resolution which, ultimately, resulted in the execution of the Agreement. The Negotiation Phase During negotiati

rmation about this case to the media—including to Landon Thomas, the senior business correspondent for the New Yor

an threatened to send to an undisclosed list of “victims.” The eventual transmission of this highly misleading letter was only halted by an appeal to AAG Fisher. Among those substantive objections (which related to far more than the “time and place” of the state’s sentencing hearing) were: o Sending the lett

of 188 months. e Facing Ms. Villafana’s threatened draconian indictment, without the claimed offer of the right to raise objections in an appeal to AAG Fisher, the defense chose to negotiate an HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012176 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Agreement to Defer Prosecution to the State, an