Page 55 of a rough draft deposition transcript stamped by House Oversight. Attorney Mr. Simpson questions a witness about what they would have told a judge (specifically Judge Marra). The witness, likely an attorney themselves, objects that the question is speculative and involves attorney-client privilege, but asserts they would have provided an 'ample factual basis for those allegations.' Professor Cassell is mentioned in an objection regarding expert witnesses.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Simpson | Attorney |
Conducting the questioning/examination of the witness.
|
| The Witness | Deponent |
Answering questions regarding past legal strategies and attorney-client privilege.
|
| Professor Cassell | Subject of discussion |
Mentioned as not being present as an expert witness. (Likely Paul Cassell).
|
| Judge Marra | Judge |
Referenced as the judge to whom the witness would have presented arguments. (Likely Judge Kenneth Marra).
|
| Unnamed Speaker | Attorney |
Speaking in lines 1-5, objecting to the question on grounds of speculation.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Inferred from Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021878'.
|
"I would have provided an ample factual basis for those allegations."Source
"we are setting aside attorney/client communications, right?"Source
"that would have involved going back to my client and carving out what kinds of things we were going to present to Judge Marra"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,097 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document