EFTA00013213.pdf
27.8 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email
File Size:
27.8 KB
Summary
This document is an internal email from April 16, 2019, between USANYS officials discussing staffing for the Jeffrey Epstein case. The sender proposes adding a specific female employee currently in the 'VOC' unit to the team, contingent on her transfer to their location in the summer. The email also mentions canvassing a list for other potential additions while noting interpersonal dynamics between redacted staff members.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of investigation |
Mentioned in subject line 'Epstein staffing' and body regarding putting staff on his case
|
| Redacted Sender | Sender (USANYS) |
Discussing staffing decisions for the Epstein case
|
| Redacted Recipient | Recipient (USANYS) |
Receiving staffing proposals
|
| Redacted Female | Staff Member/Candidate |
Person being considered to be put on the Epstein case; currently in VOC unit; expected to come 'here' in the summer
|
| Redacted Individual | Messenger |
Person the sender would 'dispatch' to speak to the female candidate
|
Timeline (1 events)
Summer 2019
Anticipated transfer/arrival of a staff member to the unit handling the Epstein case
USANYS
Redacted Female Staff Member
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied location referred to as 'here'
|
Relationships (1)
Sender is making decisions about assigning the candidate to the Epstein case.
Key Quotes (3)
"I think the only way we could put [REDACTED] on Epstein is if we have it worked out that she is coming here this summer"Source
EFTA00013213.pdf
Quote #1
"she is in VOC, which is a unit where it makes sense to have an assistant on this case"Source
EFTA00013213.pdf
Quote #2
"I sense [REDACTED] would not be thrilled about [REDACTED]"Source
EFTA00013213.pdf
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,096 characters)
From: [REDACTED] (USANYS)" <[REDACTED]>
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS)" <[REDACTED]>
Subject: Epstein staffing
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 20:42:30 +0000
Importance: Normal
To: [REDACTED] (USANYS)" <[REDACTED]>
Subject: Epstein staffing
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 20:42:30 +0000
Importance: Normal
I think the only way we could put [REDACTED] on Epstein is if we have it worked out that she is coming here this summer –
that would involve her agreement plus full buy-in from [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. If that is the case, then the fallout from adding
her is minimal because (1) she is in VOC, which is a unit where it makes sense to have an assistant on this case to begin
with; and (2) word will get out that she is coming here. I would dispatch [REDACTED] to tell her that we were only open to it if it
were confirmed she was coming here.
that would involve her agreement plus full buy-in from [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. If that is the case, then the fallout from adding
her is minimal because (1) she is in VOC, which is a unit where it makes sense to have an assistant on this case to begin
with; and (2) word will get out that she is coming here. I would dispatch [REDACTED] to tell her that we were only open to it if it
were confirmed she was coming here.
Canvassing the list, the other people we could add would be [REDACTED], [REDACTED], or [REDACTED]. I sense [REDACTED] would not be thrilled about
[REDACTED], and I don't feel the need to add [REDACTED] to anything significant right now, so I would probably say [REDACTED].
[REDACTED], and I don't feel the need to add [REDACTED] to anything significant right now, so I would probably say [REDACTED].
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
EFTA00013213
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document