DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00797.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page15 of 37 media were selective, partial republications of the statement. Any such selective, partial republication by definition took those excerpts “out of context.” This is so because Mr. Gow informed the media in his email that he was providing “a quotable statement,” Doc.542-6, Ex.F, not a statement “from which you, the media, are free to excerpt as you please.” More importantly, as Mr. Barden explained, selectively excerpting the statement substantially altered his message. See id., Ex.K J 20. For example, when he said in the third paragraph that plaintiffs claims are “obvious lies,” it followed two paragraphs in which he explained why it was obvious the new claims are lies. See id., Ex.K J] 19-22. Excerpting and republishing only the “obvious lies” phrase—as plaintiff did in her complaint—certainly gives the reader a different understanding than if the media had republished the entire statement. As Rand held: A defendant cannot be liable for the republication of derogatory but constitutionally protected opinion “when the foundation upon which that opinion is based is omitted. The defamatory remark should be read against the background of its issuance.” 430 N.Y.S.2d at 275 (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff argues: “A jury could reasonably conclude that [Ms. Maxwell’s] statement that Ms. Giuffre’s claims of child sexual abuse are ‘obvious lies’ is not a rhetorical device, nor hyperbole, but a literal and particular affirmation that [plaintiff] lied.” Resp. 33 (emphasis supplied). We italicize plaintiff's rhetorical sleight of hand. As plaintiff knows, nowhere did the January 2015 statement specify which of plaintiffs countless allegations are “obvious lies.” Indeed, this is the problem with plaintiff's case: since the statement specified no particular allegations as obvious lies, plaintiff believes she is entitled to “prove” the truth of every allegation she ever has made about her alleged experience as a “‘sex slave.” What Mr. Barden’s declaration makes clear is he deliberately made no reference to any specific allegation by plaintiff. He had a bigger target: plaintiff's credibility. He used the statement to show plaintiffs 10