EFTA01960739.pdf

To: Jeffrey Epsteitevacation(8gmail.comj From: Michael Wolff Sent Mon 8/19/2013 10:01:23 PM Subject: Some thoughts An interesting predicament... A) The status-quo is to your liking; B) By advising Gates, you run the risk of upending the status quo, causing both upset to yourself and to Gates. Any connection of you to Gates generates at minimum eyebrow raising coverage, aimed at Gates as much as you, or, possibly, a shit storm. The connection might not be made, but also might be made at any time; chances of the connection being made rise proportionally with your continuing involvement with Gates. C) You can bet on the possibility of not being connected and hedge by putting crisis people in place and having them ready to respond if and when the connection is made--much goes awry in these situations in the gap between exposure and getting competent people to deal with the exposure. D) You can out yourself. You can do it in a way that tries to preserve as much as possible of the status quo--for instance, Gates referencing you in some way and saying something positive about the importance of your contribution; or you giving an interview to a dull financial journalist, with positive comments from Gates, i.e. not hiding anything, but putting it on the record as undramatically as possible. But it is also likely that this will just provide the opening for the shit storm anyway. On the other hand, you can try to define a new normal by redefining yourself--the JE we don't know--someone different enough from the past press that the story becomes that much more complicated and, hence, that much more difficult to slap a label on. E) Unless you are luckier than you should plan on being, the status-quo is lost. F) Is the Gates involvement worth that? Here is one unique approach which I think I can offer: I believe that I could write a redefined Jeffrey Epstein story--personal, fond, complex, funny, smart--that would deal with all the issues in a nuanced enough way that might make it anti-climactic for anybody else to try to deal with them. We'd seize the narrative. I'd be pleased to do this not just because I think it would help the situation, but also because I think it would be fun to tell your story. I'd suggest doing this sort of thing in New York Magazine. This approach involves more personal exposure but it seems safer to me than trying to low ball the story--again, that's just hoping you don't get noticed. In addition, I would certainly put people in place now who are ready to deal with any sort of eruption of the story. Then there is long term strategy for after this is out in the open. That has to be thought through. Anyway, in a nutshell. I leave for Berlin on Sunday and then London. I'm back on September 7. EFTA_R1_00435184 EFTA01960739 m EFTA_R1_00435185 EFTA01960740