DOJ-OGR-00004158.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 23 of 34 contacts with Boies Schiller on the topic of Epstein any more than he shared the contacts on the topic of Maxwell—he simply denied any contacts had occurred, something that is demonstrably false. Whether Boies Schiller “pitched” a prosecution of Epstein only or of Epstein and Maxwell as a duo, AUSA J misled Judge McMahon by denying there was any “pitch” whatsoever. III. The Materiality of the Government’s False Statements. The government halfheartedly suggests that “there is no reason to believe that a description of the February 2016 meeting would have been material to Chief Judge McMahon’s analysis of whether she was facing a ‘Chemical Bank kind of situation.’”” Resp. at 91. Hardly. In fact, there is every reason to believe Judge McMahon would have refused to authorize the subpoena if AUSA gg had not so misled her. How do we know? Because Judge McMahon said so—at least twice. Judge McMahon first made this clear by haling AUSA J back in for one and only one reason: To ask him about the contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018. So crucial was this question to Judge McMahon’s decision that the transcript of the AUSA I sccond appearance before her is just three pages long. Mot. Ex. E. Judge McMahon made her thinking even clearer in her written order authorizing the subpoena. Mot. Ex. G. On page 12 of her opinion, when attempting to reconcile Chemical Bank with Martindell,”° Judge McMahon found that “nothing in the record suggests that the Government’s investigation in this case was occasioned by Boies Schiller—a point to which I will return later in this opinion.” Mot. Ex. G, p 12. ° Martindell v. Int’] Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). 18 DOJ-OGR-00004158