From: To: "Kathleen E. Cassidy" Cc: Samidh Guha Subject: Re: Section 1512 Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 15:01:52 +0000 Susan Necheles Great, thanks. Talk to you then— we can use this line: Sent from my iPhone On Nov 9, 2020, at 9:58 AM, Kathleen E. Cassidy Yes, that is fine. Thanks, Kate From: Sent: Mon ay, Novem er , : To: Kathleen E. Cassidy Cc: Samidh Guha Su ect: Re: ection 1512 Hi Kate, Would Wednesday at 12:30 p.m. work? Thanks, Sent from my iPhone ; Susan Necheles On Nov 9, 2020, at 8:43 AM, Kathleen E. Cassidy wrote: wrote: Hi all, I apologize but can we move our call to Wednesday? We can be available at your convenience. Thanks, Kate Sent from my iPhone On Nov 5, 2020, at 5:22 PM, kvrote: Thanks very much. We are free anytime from 3 pm onwards on Monday, is there a time that works best for you? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 5, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Kathleen E. Cassidy wrote: Hi EFTA00019119

We thought it would be useful to schedule a call for Monday. Is there a time that would work for you all? Best, Kate From: Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:35 AM To: Kathleen E. Cassidy Subject: RE: Section 1512 Hi all, ; Samidh Guha Susan Necheles Hope everyone is doing well. I'm checking in to see if you have any updates on timing for next steps. As always, please let us know if it would be useful to schedule a call. Thanks, From: Kathleen E. Cassidy Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 3:50 PM To: Samidh Guha ; Susan Necheles Cc: Subject: RE: Section 1512 Hi all, We are working on drafting something up and will get back to you by early next week. Thanks, Kate From: Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 1:03 PM To: Kathleen E. Cassidy Subject: RE: Section 1512 All, Samidh Guha Susan Necheles and I wanted to follow up to ask if a call would be useful to check in — we recognize you will likely need more time to evaluate this, but it would be helpful to discuss where we are. Are you available for a call this week? Thanks, From Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 6:57 PM EFTA00019120

To: Kathleen E. Cassidy ; Samidh Guha : Susan Necheles Cc Subject: RE: Section 1512 All, Following up on our discussions, we wanted to send you a preliminary statement of facts, so that we can discuss whether there might be room for agreement. Whenever you're ready to discuss, please let us know when you'd like to schedule a call. Please note that the language below isn't final from our perspective — we're happy to discuss any issues you see with the statement, and it's possible there might be modifications on our end as well. However, we wanted to have a starting point so that we could have more concrete discussions with you about whether a resolution is possible here. As we've discussed, this isn't a plea offer, and we don't intend to issue a plea offer before notifying and consulting with victims. Thanks, EFTA00019121

From: Kathleen E. Cassidy Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 12:51 PM To: Cc: Samidh Guha Susan Necheles ■ u ject: e: ection We can use this dial in for 4:30. Talk to you then. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2020, at 9:59 AM, Hi Kate, wrote: Just following up to confirm that we are scheduled to talk today at 4:30 p.m. If that time no longer works for you, please let us know. Thanks, Sent from my iPhone On Sep 22, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Hi Kate, rote: EFTA00019122

That works for us, thanks. Could you please send us a conference line? Thanks, Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2020, at 9:48 PM, Kathleen E. Cassidy Hi Would 4:30 on Wednesday work for you all? Thanks, Kate wrote: From: Sent: ri ay, eptem er : To: Kathleen E. Cassidy Cc: Samidh Guha Susan Necheles (USANYS) Subject: Re: Section 1512 Hi Kate, Thanks very much. We are free for a call on Wednesday at 3 p.m. or later. Would that work for you? Thanks, Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2020, at 9:54 AM, Kathleen E. Cassidy wrote: Hi Yes, thank you for your email. Can we schedule a call for mid-week next week? What works for you guys? Thanks, Kate From: Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 12:49 PM To: Samidh Guha • Kathleen E. Cassidy < ; Susan Necheles Subject: RE: Section 1512 Hi all, I'm following up on my email below to confirm that you've received it. If you have any questions, please let us know. We are available for a call next week if you're ready to discuss further. Thanks, EFTA00019123

From Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 12:21 PM To: 'Samidh Guha' Necheles' Subject: RE: Section 1512 All, 'Kathleen E. Cassidy' ; 'Susan Following up on your questions about 18 U.S.C. § 1510, we wanted to let you know that it is our understanding that Section 1510 requires proof that the defendant knew the relevant law enforcement official was in fact a federal law enforcement official. See United States v. Escalera, 957 F.3d 122, 131 n.11 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Grande, 620 F.2d 1026,1036-37 (4th Cir. 1980) ("We read this legislative history to articulate a congressional intention that one may be found to have violated § 1510 only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt, inter alia, that the person who was intimidated, threatened, or harmed was about to communicate information to another known by the accused to be a federal criminal investigator.")). By contrast, as we have discussed, Section 1512(b)(3) has no such requirement. If you have a different view of that issue or if there are any authorities you would like us to review, we'd be happy to look more closely at the issue. Please let us know if you have any questions, or if a call would be useful to discuss. Thanks, From: Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 12:46 PM To: Samidh Guha Kathleen E. Cassidy • >; Susan Necheles • • Subject: Section 1512 Hi all, Following up on our conversation last week, we wanted to send you two cases that we believe bear directly on the question you raised regarding Section 1512(b)(3). We're happy to discuss further when we speak tomorrow, but we wanted to send these to you in advance in case that's useful. Thanks, EFTA00019124

EFTA00019125