DOJ-OGR-00004156.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 21 of 34 matters that were the subject of the Giuffre [defamation] Action,” and having been misled by AUSA [RE tesponse, Judge McMahon erroneously (though blamelessly) concluded that [nJothing in this record suggests to me that Giuffre or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government’s decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the Giuffre Action. . . There is no evidence of “collusion,” to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller did not foment the Government’s investigation. Id. (emphasis added). For her part, AUSA J shared the very concern Judge McMahon later expressed to AUSA ER: that Boies Schiller was trying to instigate an investigation of Maxwell to leverage its position in the “Giuffre Action.” Mot. Ex. K, p 3. In the 2021 call, AUSA yyy recalled that the pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation . . . gave [her] some pause because she had other occasions where civil litigants have decided to report something to the USAO because they think it will help them in their civil case. AUSA J even mentioned this concern to the Chief of the Criminal Division. /d. If AUSA ME 2nd the Chief of the Criminal Division recognized what was going on, AUSA 3 can hardly feign ignorance. !? If the government means to suggest that when Judge McMahon asked about any prior contacts concerning “the subject of your investigation,” she was somehow confining her inquiry to the time period surrounding November 2018, see Resp. at 90-91, that too is an implausible reading of the transcript. If Judge McMahon meant “subject” to be a term of art (“subject” of the investigation as opposed to a “target” of the investigation), then the government should have '° Of course, if AUSA J honestly did not understand Chief Judge McMahon’s question, once she issued her opinion there could no longer be any doubt. And at that point, AUSA would have been duty-bound to correct the misimpression he had created. N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule. 3.8, cmt. [6A] (“Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rule 3.3, which requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures to correct material evidence that the lawyer has offered when the lawyer comes to know of its falsity.”). 16 DOJ-OGR-00004156