86 H3VOGIU1 ih tell you that." So even the defense counsel when given an 2 opportunity to articulate the relevance failed to do so, in our 3 view. 4 She says -- then her next argument is, well, the 5 plaintiff's experts are using Dershowitz's statements. As you 6 know from the 702 pleadings, no, we're using Maxwell's 7 statements. We're only going to be proving a case about what 8 Maxwell's defamation did to Ms. Giuffre. 9 And then the last argument was that there was a 10 failure to mitigate damages by suing Dershowitz. Well, your 1a Honor knows, if a person A commits a defamation, you sue A and 12 you get your damages. Then if person B does something, you 13 sort that out in a separate proceeding in a separate way. 14 Sacks and others are very instructive on that. 15 The last point they made was that, well, look, these 16 statements were going on while Cassell and Edwards were de representing her. They've shown simultaneity in time, but not 18 simultaneity in the scope. igs) It is true that the lawsuit was settled, and I won't 20 refer to myself in the third person. Mr. Edwards and I settled 21 the lawsuit and made certain statements in connection with 22 that, but that was to take care of our own professional 23 reputation and the lawsuit associated with that, it had nothing 24 to do with representing Ms. Giuffre. 25 I believe I have two left, your Honor, and you've been SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011389