Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:57 PM To: (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Statement re Epstein (USAFLS) Why do you make it so hard for the good guys to follow the rules? Just release the letter. It isn't a privileged communication. It was sent to opposing counsel. Assistant U.S. Attorne Fax Original Message From: =, (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 7:51 PM To: . (USAFLS) Subject: Fw: Statement re Epstein Sorry. Here it is Original Message ---- From: csamoff [mailto: Sent: Thurnla , March 24, 2011 06:56 PM To: =,= (USAFLS); Janet Aitken ‹ > Subject: Re: Statement re Epstein Thank you Best, Conchita Original Message-- From: == To: Janet Aitken Cc: Subject: Statement re Epstein Sent: 24 Mar 2011 18:40 After reviewing the U.S. Attorneyaems handling of this matter, including allegations of misconduct, the office of the deputy attorney general determined there was no basis to intervene in the matter. We will not be making additional comments. Thanks for checking with us. Special Counsel to the US Attorney Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: Aitken, Lee Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:07 PM To: . (USAFLS) Subject: jeffrey epstein prosecution Dear Ms. I am an editor at both Newsweek and the Daily Beast website. I left a phone message last week but have not received a call back. Now we are facing a deadline for posting on the Daily Beast tonight, so I'd like to give you another chance to respond to our query. We have obtained a five-page letter you wrote to attorney Jay Lefkowitz on December 13, 2007 EFTA00206408

protesting charges of misconduct on your part and laying out several details about your interactions with Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Your co-signer, Alex Accosta, has already acknowledged the vaiidity of this letter, but I would also like you to confirm that it came from your office. If you have any further comment to make about it or facts to add about this case I would love to hear back from you right away. We plan to post a story about the negotiations behind the Non-Prosecution agreement at 8 pm this evening. Thank you for your time and prompt attention, Lee Aitken From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:07 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK Attachments: Letter from CEOS.TIF Please add the capitalized language (below). I am trying to find letter to them. Assistant U.S. Attorne Fax Ori inal Message From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda March 24, 2011 4:57 PM To: . (USAFLS)• (USAFLS); Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK Proposed SDFL (non)response: (USAFLS) (USAFLS); As you know from your communications with the DOJ's Office of Public Affairs, the defense in this case asked for an independent DOJ review of all facts, circumstances and allegations surrounding this prosecution. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General did in fact review the case, which is not uncommon, and determined that NO MISCONDUCT OCCURRED AND THAT prosecutorial discretion in the case appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney's Office. If you agree, I need to run this by DOJ. DOJ already provided the following comment -- but ours is slightly different (ergo, the need to run it by them) DOJ response: The Office of the Deputy Attorney General did review the case, which is not uncommon, and determined that prosecutorial discretion in the case appropriately rested with the U.S. Attorney's Office. (Off the record, note 'review" would be the appropriate word, not "negotiate".) In terms of a boss, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices report through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (at the time, Mark Filip was the DAG.) Ori inal Messa e From: . (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 4:12 PM To: . USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: FW: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK Importance: High EFTA00206409

— This just arrived. Why do they always wait until 2 minutes before their deadline to contact us99999 I did not fail to call her back, I referred the matter to you. Can you please handle this. Making clear that all allegations raised by Epstein's team were investigated by DOJ and found to be completely meritless. You might also add that Epstein had previously made false allegations against the Palm Beach Police Chief. I would love to know how they got the letter, but they probably will not tell you their source. Assistant U.S. Attorne Fax Original Message From: Aitken, Lee (mailto• Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 4:07 PM To: . (USAFLS) Subject: jeffrey epstein prosecution Dear Ms. I am an editor at both Newsweek and the Daily Beast website. I left a phone message last week but have not received a call back. Now we are facing a deadline for posting on the Daily Beast tonight, so I'd like to give you another chance to respond to our query. We have obtained a five-page letter you wrote to attorney Jay Lefkowitz on December 13, 2007 protesting charges of misconduct on your part and laying out several details about your interactions with Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Your co-signer, Alex Accosta, has already acknowledged the vaiidity of this letter, but I would also like you to confirm that it came from your office. If you have any further comment to make about it or facts to add about this case I would love to hear back from you right away. We plan to post a story about the negotiations behind the Non-Prosecution agreement at 8 pm this evening. Thank you for your time and prompt attention, Lee Aitken From: (USAFLS) < > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 5:58 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS); . (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein Here is our response. Although technically incorrect, using the term plaintiff does make it easier to follow. Let me know if you want me to change for future use. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 5:55 PM To: Michele Dar an Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein (USAFLS); EFTA00206410

The U.S. Attorney's Office will file its response to the instant motion in court. However, as we stated more than two years ago in July 2008 in our response to the plaintiffs' then-emergency petition for enforcement of the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA), the CVRA was not violated because no federal charges were ever filed in the Southern District of Florida. Because the matter remains pending in court, it would be inappropriate at this time to provide additional comment on the merits of the current motion. Special Counsel to the U.S. Attorney From: Michele Dargan Sent: Monda 21, 2011 4:52 PM To: , (USAFLS) Subject: Jeffrey Epstein Hi There's been a new court filing in West Palm Beach federal court regarding Jeffrey Epstein. In case # 08-CV-80736, attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and #2 are challenging the validity of the federal NPA, worked out between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's criminal attorneys before he pled guilty to his state charges. Basically, the attorneys for Doe 1 and 2 are saying the USAO did not notify the victims before signing the NPA, which violates the Crime Victims Rights Act. They are saying that the NPA should be invalidated because of it. They also allege in the motion that the USAO agreed to keeping the NPA secret (it was originally sealed) because of pressure from Epstein's attorneys and higher ups in the Justice Dept. I'm reaching out to you for a response to the court filing. I am on deadline with the story. Thanks, Michele Michele Dargan Staff Writer Palm Beach Dail News voice: fax: Toll-free: EFTA00206411