Epstein Secrets

sonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government.” At least in the posture of this case (and we do

REv. 341, 356, 378 (2012) (illustrating that the necessity dispute has endured to the present day). 21 150 Conc. REc. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein), see also Ky] et al., supra note 19, at 591-93. 2 Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as ame

the district court in the Does case also rejected Government efforts to dismiss the action. The district court

Rev. 341, 356, 378 (2012) (illustrating that the necessity dispute has endured to the present day). 21 150 Cong. Rec. 7295 (2004) (statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein); see also Kyl et al., supra note 19, at 591-93. ~ Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified as ame

overning information subject to disclosure by the Government in criminal cases, nor any other federal rule or

y address the court. Indeed, the very purpose of this section is to allow the victim to appear personally and directly address the court. 47 Senator Dianne Feinstein, another primary sponsor of the bill, remarked that Senator Kyl's understanding of the bill was "[her] understanding as well." +43 In addition to th