Epstein Secrets

ivileges and from the policy of construing privileges narrowly, so as to protect the "search for truth." 689 F.2d at 1003 (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)). Here the Court has strong reason to be skeptical of a new plea bargaining privilege. The transparent purpose behind Epstein'

ule 410 "only excludes statements made in plea discussions that do not result in a plea of guilty. As such, the rule does not apply here because Mr. Kerik eventually pleaded guilty."). Here, of course, Epstein's plea discussions did result in a plea of guilty. As the Court is well aware, Epstein engag

410(4) "makes admissions in plea bargaining inadmissible only if the plea bargaining either does 'not result in a plea of guilty"); United States v. Kerik, 531 F.Supp.2d 610, 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Rule 410 "only excludes statements made in plea discussions that do not result in a plea of guilty. As suc

grace, but in using the power of his office to keep his friend and adviser Roger J. Stone Jr. out of prison he has now crossed a line that even Mr. Nixon in the depths of Watergate dared not cross." According to Baker, "Trump indulged his own sense of grievance over precedent to reward an ally who ke

inate number of them which have gone to people with either personal or political ties to Trump (or both): Joe Arpaio, Dinesh D'Souza, Conrad Black, Bernard Kerik, Rod Blagojevich, Michael Milken, Paul Pogue, David Safavian, Eddie DeBartolo Jr. and now Stone. It's hardly unheard-of for a president to pardon a

ere a U.S. district and appeals court are actively considering the unsealing of "confidential" materials simultaneous with the criminal prosecution. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978), is the closest, yet even there, the U.S. Supreme Court refused press access to the tapes obtained from thi

24, 2020 Page 6 documents, that is, documents that are `relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.'" Kerik, 2014 WL 12710346, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014), (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995)). The Materials that Ms. Maxwe