DOJ-OGR-00009410.jpg
425 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / deposition testimony
File Size:
425 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring testimony by an individual named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on when Edelstein and another individual, Theresa Trzaskoma, learned specific facts regarding a 'suspension' and whether this occurred via a Google search/investigation or after receiving a specific note/letter. Edelstein attempts to clarify the timeline of what was known on May 12th versus what was known when a legal brief was subsequently written.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edelstein | Witness/Deponent |
Providing testimony regarding the timeline of knowledge and the drafting of a brief.
|
| Theresa Trzaskoma | Subject of inquiry |
Mentioned as having learned facts through a Google search or investigation.
|
| Unidentified Questioner (Q) | Attorney/Interviewer |
Conducting the examination of Edelstein.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting firm listed in the footer.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00009410'.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the method of search used by Theresa Trzaskoma.
|
Relationships (1)
Edelstein is questioned about Trzaskoma's knowledge and investigation methods.
Key Quotes (3)
"What I was trying to distinguish was what I knew on May 12th, versus what I knew by the time we were writing the brief."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009410.jpg
Quote #1
"I can see now with hindsight -- I see many things now"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009410.jpg
Quote #2
"that when I received the letter it caused us concern and prompted us to investigate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009410.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,397 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 121 of 130
A-5806
A-5806
C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 349
1 A. She didn't mention what the basis was.
2 Q. But she told you that she had learned of it, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And is it fair that you inferred that she through her
5 Google search or some sort of investigation had learned that
6 fact?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So that's what led you just a moment ago to say you knew
9 that Theresa Trzaskoma had previously learned certain facts
10 pursuant to an investigation, right?
11 A. Well, no. What I was trying to distinguish was what I knew
12 on May 12th, versus what I knew by the time we were writing the
13 brief.
14 Q. Okay, and in this brief, the sentence that you just read
15 conveys the notion, does it not, that you learned of the facts
16 concerning the suspension and the other things only after you
17 received a note, correct?
18 A. Again, that's a difficult question to answer yes or no. I
19 can see now how it might be construed that way, but when it was
20 written, and I still believe it was accurate, that it's
21 describing what we did when we -- and I think it's what I
22 testified to earlier, that when I received the letter it caused
23 us concern and prompted us to investigate. We were describing
24 that.
25 I can see now with hindsight -- I see many things now
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
1 A. She didn't mention what the basis was.
2 Q. But she told you that she had learned of it, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And is it fair that you inferred that she through her
5 Google search or some sort of investigation had learned that
6 fact?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So that's what led you just a moment ago to say you knew
9 that Theresa Trzaskoma had previously learned certain facts
10 pursuant to an investigation, right?
11 A. Well, no. What I was trying to distinguish was what I knew
12 on May 12th, versus what I knew by the time we were writing the
13 brief.
14 Q. Okay, and in this brief, the sentence that you just read
15 conveys the notion, does it not, that you learned of the facts
16 concerning the suspension and the other things only after you
17 received a note, correct?
18 A. Again, that's a difficult question to answer yes or no. I
19 can see now how it might be construed that way, but when it was
20 written, and I still believe it was accurate, that it's
21 describing what we did when we -- and I think it's what I
22 testified to earlier, that when I received the letter it caused
23 us concern and prompted us to investigate. We were describing
24 that.
25 I can see now with hindsight -- I see many things now
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009410
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document