HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011388.jpg

10 fd. 12 [3 14 15 16 i) 18 wife) 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 H3VOGIU1 X, fair enough, cross examine her about it, inconsistent statement. We're not objecting to that aspect of that. What we don't want is the lawsuit itself and the circumstances surrounding the lawsuit to be paraded in front of jury. If they simply want to put in a deposition statement to stay it's inconsistent, and that's properly done, of course, that would be appropriate. Their second point is, she participated for a period of time. I guess she participated if you're subpoenaed as a witness and testified, but that wasn't -- you know, she wasn't a party to the case. Their third point was that the reputational damages somehow link into what Dershowitz was saying. Again, your Honor already knows our point one is to keep out Mr. Dershowitz from the case, and you'll make a ruling one way or the other on it. If he's kept out of the case then this becomes a moot point. But even if you decide he's in the case, well, okay, fine. Have him testify and do whatever else you think is appropriate. We don't need to hear all about this unrelated lawsuit. Their fourth point had to do with, I believe, you know, damages suffered by Ms. Giuffre. Your question was, if I'm -- I don't have the transcript in front of me -- I think you said, well, how does the case itself go to damages? And I believe this is a direct quote from Ms. Menninger. "I can't SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011388