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: Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:13 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK How about giving them the letter??? Assistant U.S. Attorne Fax ----OrigirS Message From: MI, (USAFLS) Sent Thursda , March 24, 2011 5:09 PM To: (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK (USAFLS); I understand why you want that, and I would love to include it, but that is beyond the response DOJ gave to Conchita. I will have to run this by them. Any other thoughts before I send this to DOJ?? ----Ori inal Messa e--- From: . (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda , March 24, 2011 5:07 PM To: , (USAFLS); . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK EFTA00206430

Please add the capitalized language (below). I am trying to find letter to them. Assistant U.S. Attorne Fax Original Message (USAFLS) March 24, 2011 4:57 PM .(USAFLS): (USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: jeffrey epstein prosecution -CONTACT FROM NEWSWEEK Proposed SDFL (non)response: (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 -- 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 EFTA00206431

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: Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 9:43 AM To: . (USAFLS); Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd Let me know when you want to chat and I'll make myself available. United States Department of Justice Criminal Division. Appellate Section tel: fax: Ori inal Messa e From: . (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Monda March 28. 2011 9:36 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Emailing: CVRA Omnibus Response.wpd Hi MI and -- Just read all of your emails from yesterday. (USAFLS) -- I think that, having read more cases, and then re-read the Department's guidance, that our position should be that the petitioners are not entitled to file a civil cause of action, even for a declaratory judgment. The statute provides them with a remedy, which is a referral of DOJ attomeys for disciplinary sanctions, and specifies that "the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney General by the complainant." (18 USC 3771(f)(2)(D)) "Where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it." U.S. v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting TAMA v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19 (1979)). Why don't we get together tomorrow face-to-face and talk it through? I can come down to Miami. -- maybe we can steal you for 30 minutes just to bounce some ideas off of you? Assistant U.S. Attorne Fax EFTA00206432