EFTA00101535.pdf

From: ' ET( JUSANYS)" To: SANYS)" Subject: RE: Following up Witness PA Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:20:11 +0000 Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png On the subject never ends, the State Department would like us to modify our proposed confidentiality language as follows: Absent a court order directing otherwise, U.S. authorities will not use or disclose the content of the witness's statements in an interview with U.S. authorities in any matter other than a U.S. criminal investigation or proceeding, and any non-criminal judicial or administrative proceeding directly related to a U.S. criminal investigation or proceeding, pursuant to Article 7 of the Treaty. Do you have thoughts on whether that would be broad enough to include any potential civil action we might pursue in connection with the Epstein estate in USVI? Not sure we would ever plan to do so, but was trying to preserve the option. That said, if this is the language of the treaty, not sure how hard we can push back. From: (USANYS) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:27 PM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Following up Witness PA I think that's OK. Note that Touhy is not entirely discretionary—it applies after a subpoena issues, and our denial can be reviewed in court. But we can easily insist on a court order. At the beginning of the 302 (and any notes) the following should be stated: Note that for purposes of any FOIA request, subpoena/Touhy request, Privacy Act routine use disclosure, or any other disclosure this document is subject restrictions on disclosure pursuant to the MLAT pursuant to which the interview took place. Absent a court order directing otherwise, the SDNY or FBI will not use or disclose the content of the witness's statements in an interview with law enforcement in any matter other than a criminal investigation, prosecution, or related civil action or asset forfeiture action initiated by the United States government. The FBI should really understand that any leak of any of this would be pretty terrible. From: (USANYS) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 2:58 PM To: USANYS) Subject: FW: Following up Witness PA . - See below for the language of the treaty. In light of that, M . has signed off on the following language, but let me now if you have any concerns: Absent a court order directing otherwise, the SDNY or FBI will not use or disclose the content of the witness's statements in an interview with law enforcement in any matter other than a criminal investigation, prosecution, or related civil action or asset forfeiture action initiated by the United States government. EFTA00101535 From:(CRM) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 8:11 AM To: Cc: Subject: o owing up itness The UK could impose conditions on any evidence provided under the MLA treaty. Once the evidence is provided they typically send a letter to us saying that the evidence is to be used only for the purposes specified in the MLA request. Our MLA requests track the language of the Treaty, which gives us use in criminal cases and related forfeiture and administrative actions. It doesn't deal with FOIA or Touhy. (Since Touhy is discretionary, I assume we would just reject any requests for agent testimony on this topic.) Here is the link to the treaty on OIA's intranet page: http:thrmln05.crm.doj.gov:7778/Wportaliclocs/PAGE/O1A/TAB TREATY LIBRARY/MLAT/DATA/USEU.MLA.UK.PDF Here are the relevant sections: leo. Mutual legal asszstance shall also be afforded to a r-usonal atm-ass:se sthonty. :os Nip:1U collet stud a ties to a cninmal boo of the condort. or referral of the conduct to cnnustal =satiation of ;totems r..thontxu. p...-surs to Ion sp:afic adninunaut e or reguLuory authonty to umlestfise such ins sigson Sliest Sep] asszesree ray ito be affiseded to other adinimstrauseauthannes under such circumstances Assistance tall not be r. aslaNe foe metal in which the admeaserante ardent' mumps's the Pz prowess or referral. as appbubk. will take place Request; Sae ass:stance unite this paragraph shit be true ;tad between the Central Authcona den -wed pusuant to Angle 2 of dist Tres", or tens ten such other =bents m may be agremt by the Central Authortues ARTICLE 7 Confidentiality and Lune/mons on Use I. The Requested Party dull, upon request. keep confidential any information winch might mdieate thus request has been made oe responded to. If the request cannot be executed wither breaching ezeifidentiality. the Roam-sled Party shall so inform the Rema-sung Palsy. which shall then determine the client to which it wolves the request to be mcCuted. 2. The RequnOng Piny may use any metre< or aprons:ma obtained from the Requested Party (a) for the purpose of its avosnal immuganons aid proceedings. (b) for preventing an mumediate and salmis threat to its public *aunty; re) mm coo-eriminal sone a aSeastrime ;meadow &meth Meet to imestapose or pastas (0 (o) se feet m moparacaph (5). foe steel mutual Pp: maga= was .maned tides Sack I et ha) of this Treaty. WI ter re* orha p.n.s. If tbe endsr or information bat beat as& 'abbe spa the pass oda of preestass fo studs they see trettsamed. a to as of the stalcal described n st-SPflOPP‘s (5). (b) rat «k awl le) Tot aey ether purpose Y nub the p-sx comma of the feasuctue Party I (a) TS Ankh thall eel recy.Sce the abthey of the Rammed Parry et ICCOI0St nth tbs Treatymaps add.00ne «eons as a parboilar case • here the psalm fess far asset cos14 not be coshed sit she able ct of wet seasons. Where Wass) seSseets lase ate Reposed= assess with th.s seeing PS. Oa Re ls ed Path this MSS the htslistitinh Party le pet intoesson co the rude of Me mates or infamos_ is) Gab: remtcoces won rescem to the kph stardada ante Req.:sans Pm) fee pans -.4 'moral data ray nor be imposed qt' the Requested Par) as a coredge uefe, s.t.cinopn to so pens tsar <nista te 4 Where. frilown tie ices to to Recants Sty. thc Rescued Prey tests r. ere of nrcurostsei the may macaw wet m iStiosal corsthuse in PaaPoplat se. the Resist Pan ea, cecs with the Iteerathst Ps to determine Scats to iitsh die asks et =thesis se be ted EFTA00101536 ARTICLE IS Roes &Danes W Araks TMCereal Ately MIS Rearsiag Piny sing Ma ear* atm Anibal Fes In wads Ss inns elk OS Tv. A h practable mho **Caws! A/6n of tbe llama* hay • an n documents a legkes. From: (USANYS) < Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:48 PM To: Cc: FigiCRM) • tc > Sub . wing up > Thanks, And I'm sorry, my email was not clear --do you have a copy of the actual treaty? Curious as to whether the treaty itself contemplates limitations on use of information. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2020, at 6:45 PM, wrote: The MLAT is attached for reference, thanks. From: (USANYS) < Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:28 PM To: (CR Cc: Sub e : o owin Thanks, IM I appreciate the concern and am open to working to address it, to the extent possible. We, of course, would never simply turn this material over to a civil litigant, as you suggest. The problem is, irrespective of our intent, this is not Rule 6 material (unless, of course, he testifies before a grand jury), and we are trying to be mindful of not simply our criminal case, but obligations we may have under other aspects of U.S. law, FOIA and/or Touhy, spring to mind, for example. Again, we never voluntarily turn this stuff over, and we frequently oppose FOIA requests and the like to the extent we can under the law. But particularly given the history and concern, we don't want to make promises we may not be able to keep. Do you by any chance have handy a copy of the MLAT itself (if not, certainly happy to locate myself, just figured you might have it already). I'd like to see what, if anything, the treaty says about this subject. From: (CRM) Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:47 PM To: Cc: Subject: RE: Following up Thanks. This is helpful. One clarification which they will seek - because it seems to loom large in their suspicions - is whether his statement will be provided to victims for purposes of civil litigation. I know this is not something that ordinarily happens (I don't think I have ever done this) - but I think we need to say something about that to move this forward. Maybe something like, "Absent a court order directing otherwise, the SDNY will not use or disclose the statement in any matter other than a criminal investigation, prosecution, or related asset forfeiture action initiated by the United States government." EFTA00101537 What do you think? From: (USANYS) Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 7:36 PM To: CRM) Cc Subject: RE: Following up rz > Thanks for your patience. I've now had a chance to raise your suggestion on our end, and we are amenable to discussing a confidentiality agreement along the lines you propose, with some revisions. Below is our proposed language which we would be comfortable with. Happy to discuss our position further at your convenience. Thanks, Ted Prior to the in-person interview: - From now until August 14, 2020, neither the witness nor any person representing him will make any statement to anyone (other than counsel) about the plans for or terms of the interview. Likewise, the SDNY agrees to make no public comment about the matter during this period. If an interview has not been concluded by August 14, this confidentiality agreement will not bar any further public or private comments on the matter. After an in-person interview: - If the witness completes an interview with U.S. law enforcement, both parties may confirm publicly or privately that: "the witness has met with law enforcement authorities in the United States and answered questions about matters under investigation. We will not comment further." Further comment by the witness or any person representing or speaking for him will void this agreement. - The content of the witness's statements to law enforcement as part of any interview arranged pursuant to the MLA will only be used or disclosed as permitted under U.S. law, including in connection with a criminal investigation or proceeding, as ordered or authorized by a court in the United States, or as otherwise required by law. Nothing in this agreement will bar any party from disclosing to a Court any communications related to setting up or executing the interview or the contents of the interview. From: (CRM) Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 5:00 AM To: (USANYS Cc Su o owing up Sounds good. From: (USANYS) Se • ne 22, 2020 10:06 PM To: CRM) Cc: Su . Thanks, John. I am in the process of raising this internally on our end, but given recent events, and as I'm sure you can imagine, it make take me a bit more time than usual to get back to you. I can tell you the conditions below are unlikely to be acceptable to us as drafted, but provided it is in fact a rough outline, I am working on some proposed modifications that folks here may be able to get comfortable with. I will circle back when I know more. EFTA00101538 From: Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 6:50 AM To: >; Su : o owing up (USANYS) Before this weekend's events, I was planning on writing an email proposing that you put together some very specific terms for an in-person interview that we can share with the Home Office and the police force which makes the first formal approach to the witness's solicitors. Most of the terms are already noted in the MLA request: who will be present, where it will take place (UK), whether it will be recorded or written, etc. What isn't covered is any kind of a description or agreement about confidentiality. Absent this, a MLA police interview will get hung up like your efforts at a voluntary interview. This weekend's events, which are troubling on many levels, also provide an opportunity in this case. Blackfords's and the witness's anger have been focused on your former USA's public statements. They may now have some greater confidence that they can rely on any statements of confidentiality. Or at least they can now save face by agreeing to an interview. In any event, given the history of this, I think absent a mutual agreement on confidentiality, this matter will get mired in litigation, and you may never get the interview. Here is a rough outline of what might be acceptable on confidentiality. This may give you heartburn, but I think it is the most expeditious way forward: Prior to the in-person interview: - An agreement that for a period lasting no longer than eight (8) weeks, neither the witness nor any person representing him will make any statement to anyone (other than counsel) about the plans for or terms of the interview. Likewise, the USDOJ agrees to make no public comment about the matter during this period. If an interview has not been concluded within eight weeks, this confidentiality agreement will not bar any further public or private comments on the matter. After an in-person interview: - If the witness makes a statement, both parties may confirm publicly or privately that: "the witness has provided a formal statement to law enforcement authorities in the United States about matters under investigation. Further comment would not be appropriate." Further comment by the witness or any person representing or speaking for him will void this agreement. - The content of witness's statement will be treated in the same manner as testimony taken before a Federal Grand Jury under Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e). Among other things, unless used in connection with a criminal proceeding, required to be disclosed in connection with a criminal proceeding, or otherwise ordered disclosed by a court in the United States, the content of the statement will not be made public. Nothing in this agreement will bar any party from disclosing to a Court any communications related to setting up or executing the interview or the contents of the interview. Putting something like this together will pave the way for getting the interview done. Thanks, EFTA00101539 U.S. Department of Justice Attaché United States Embassy - London From the U.S.: <Material Witness PA 4.02 Final _ signed.pdf> EFTA00101540