Epstein Secrets

es v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 282 United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) 164 United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1987) 138 United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 146 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 69

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00099963 United States v. Sweig, 441

50 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2014). It follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation, see United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1987), much less his individual status in the investigation, see Washington, 431 U.S. at 189 & 190 n.6. The Constitution

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

es v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 282 United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) 164 United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1987) 138 United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 146 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00077628 United States v. Sweig, 441

es v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 282 United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) 164 United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1987) 138 United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 146 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00039443 United States v. Sweig, 441

es v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 190 United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) 112 United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1987) 97 United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 101 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (

States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 87, 93, 94 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 151, 152, 153 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 120, 127 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 115 United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d C

es v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 282 United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) 164 United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1987) 138 United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 146 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00103021 United States v. Sweig, 441

50 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2014). It follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation, see United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1987), much less his individual status in the investigation, see Washington, 431 U.S. at 189 & 190 n.6. The Constitution

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de