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. We exchanged
lists of acceptable people (including two people from Podhurst) and he said "Well, we probably should just stick with Bert."
The problem only started when Bert sent a laundry list of questions that he and the firm's conflicts counsel had and we
started trying to set up a conference call. You then raised the Special Master issue, and I agreed that was best. Then
not involved and there was radio silence as they started communicating only with you.
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