alification from representing Ms. Guiffre (in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Tum the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would f

ised that that aspect was not disclosed in the Law Journal. But in any event, I think you know where I'm heading. I respectfully disagree with the Law Journal piece. I was saying that the government's motion is relatively straightforward, and in my view, a public hearing is clearly, nevertheless, the pre

ualification from representing Ms.. Lirint(in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would

Boles' disqualification from representing (in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would