DOJ-OGR-00004157.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 22 of 34 disclosed the Boies Schiller contacts for the reasons given above. And if Judge McMahon meant “subject” to have its everyday meaning, then she was asking about something even broader: Whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office had contacts with Boies Schiller about the “subject”—1.e., the “conduct”—being investigated. Nothing about the transcript supports the government’s overly narrow, hindsight-based interpretation of Judge McMahon’s question. For these reasons, this Court should reject the government’s attempt to rewrite the history of its investigation and its affirmative misrepresentations to Judge McMahon. B. Assuming the Government’s Defenses Are Worthy of Belief, the Government Still Misled the Court. Even if the government’s account were worthy of belief (which it is not), that doesn’t get the government off the hook. The government would like this Court to believe that: (1) the February 29 meeting concerned a prosecution of Epstein only and not Maxwell; and (2) when Judge McMahon asked AUSA ERE about his office’s prior contacts with Boies Schiller concerning “the subject of its investigation,” Judge McMahon was referring to Epstein on/y and not Maxwell. Even if those two assertions were true, however, then AUSA J still misled Judge McMahon and misrepresented the origins of the investigation. Under the government’s version of events, “the pitch was to investigate Epstein, not Maxwell.” Resp. at 89 n.39. If that’s truce, AUSA J unquestionably should have told Judge McMahon about the February 2016 meeting when she asked him “about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation” —..c., Epstein. AUSA J cid not tell Chief Judge McMahon about the 17 DOJ-OGR-00004157