DOJ-OGR-00018463.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE LC6VMAX4 Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 But the witness was able to issue, and she testi fied Fully about no, you know, incons It should not be adm 25 THE COURT: istency or prior testify the matter; Page 126 of 261 and 1287 fully about the there was inconsistent sta itted into evidence. cement. My read on it at the time was that the only discrepancy was -- the implied discrepancy was whether pictures were actually sent, so it seems to me that her testimony was what was ret the email. What am MS. STERNHE M: THE COURT: And I suppo May I I missing? You may. se, & Oo put a Ms. Pomerantz says, what is it recall well enough to testify MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, THE COURT: I'm sorry, MS. STERNHEIM: apologize. THE COURT: That's okay. MS. STERNHEIM: have to be inconsistent. THE COURT: Okay. So just a record that sub A is on ama once knew about, fully and accurately fine point that the wit have just a moment? on the question, fully and accurately? but the email doesn't go to that; Flected in as tness could not it's my understanding -- at the mic please. but now cannot recall That's not the quest well tion. Past recollection recorded does not tter the witness enough to testify So what couldn't the witness testify fully and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018463