DOJ-OGR-00004144.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 9 of 34 e The attorneys promised to send AUSA ggg “affidavits and depositions” to support their request for a prosecution. /d. at 8. e Calling the meeting “intriguing,” AUSA JJ emailed the Chief of the Criminal Division three days later and proposed to “talk over” the facts with him. Ex. M, pp 1- 2. He agreed. /d. at 1. e Inthe days and weeks after the February 29 meeting, there were several emails between Giuffre’s attorneys and AUSA ggg. Exs. L & N. e There was also at least one phone call. Ex. K, at 4. e Giuffre’s attorneys provided AUSA J with documents as promised. /d. at 2; see also Ex. L, p 2. Most importantly, the government now admits that AUSA J, the prosecutor in charge of the case who appeared before Chief Judge McMahon on April 9, 2019, Anew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began. None of these statements by AUSA JJ to Judge McMahon were true. As described above, Giuffre’s attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA ggg, Giuffre’s attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding over Giuffre’s defamation against Maxwell—that there was an DOJ-OGR-00004144