DOJ-OGR-00004151.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 16 of 34 Third, in the same interview, AUSA gg admitted that she contemplated a perjury prosecution, and she “recalls thinking that a perjury investigation would have . . . challenges.” Ex. K, p 5. Left unexplained by the government in its Response to Maxwell’s Motion is why AUSA J would have contemplated a perjury prosecution if Giuffre’s attorneys had not proposed one. There are two possible explanations. Either (1) Giuffre’s attorneys knew in February 2016 that they were going to set a perjury trap for Maxwell, and they discussed that plan with AUSA [Jot the time, or (2) there were additional communications between AUSA xy and Giuffre’s attorneys (phone calls or even a second meeting) after Maxwell was deposed. Either way, the government contemplated a perjury charge against Maxwell in 2016, and the Response’s insistence otherwise is not credible. e Defense 3: Maxwell’s argument relies on nothing but the Daily News article. The government says that Maxwell’s argument “is premised solely on her use of selective snippets from a lone Daily News Article that is premised, in meaningful part, on anonymous sources and hearsay.” Resp. at 89. This claim is stunningly disingenuous, and it fails on its own terms. When Maxwell filed her Motion, she did not have access to the government’s emails and AUSA J Contemporancous notes, despite their obvious exculpatory value. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87-88 (1963). The government did not disclose these materials until Maxwell challenged the government’s candor and conduct before Judge McMahon. One wonders whether the government would have provided them to Maxwell had she not filed this Motion. 11 DOJ-OGR-00004151