Document A-5638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. February 15, 2012 C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 113 ... (rest of the text from the image) --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cv-03038-PAE Document 616-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 20 of 67 A-5638 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. February 15, 2012 C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 113 1 Q. It was irrational, was it not? 2 MR. OKULA: Objection, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Overruled. 4 A. I don't know what "irrational" means. I'm not a psychologist. 5 6 Q. And would you agree with me that at least there was no 7 logical connection between Judge Pauley having attended Duke 8 University 30 years or more ago and the hearing that you were 9 present for and the instructions you were receiving on 10 December 20th. 11 A. You went there too, but I really don't know what your 12 question means. 13 Q. When you say you went there too, you mean I went there too? 14 A. Yes. I Googled you. 15 Q. And you know that I attended that as an undergraduate? 16 A. I believe so. 17 Q. Is that responsive to the question I just asked you? 18 A. I told you, I can't answer your question, sir. 19 Q. I have now posed a different question. I am now asking you 20 to explain for us whether there's a logical connection between 21 Judge Pauley's attendance at Duke University and his statement 22 to the Court in the proceedings on December 20th? 23 A. I can't parse it down. I'm not a psychologist, sir. 24 Q. Now, then you went on to say, "Come on, this is anything in 25 favor of the defendants and they brought the motion against the C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 114 1 prosecution. It's ridiculous." Now, what were you trying to 2 get at when you said "this is anything in favor of the defendants"? 3 4 A. I don't recall. 5 Q. Well, what you were trying to get at is -- 6 A. Are you testifying for me, sir? 7 Q. What you were trying to get at, ma'am, you thought that 8 anything that might be in favor of the defendants would be 9 ridiculous, is that correct? 10 A. Absolutely not. 11 Q. Because you had decided that they were fricken crooks, 12 isn't that correct? 13 A. Absolutely not. 14 Q. You haven't decided that? 15 A. Absolutely not. 16 Q. Did you think -- and when you said "they brought the 17 motion against the prosecution did you think that Judge Pauley 18 was unaware of who filed the motion and who was responding to 19 the motion concerning the request for a new trial? 20 A. You have to break that question down for me, because Pacer 21 is a public record, sir. 22 Q. Can you explain to me what the fact that Pacer is a public 23 record has to do with the question of whether Judge Pauley 24 would know who filed the motion? 25 A. Of course. It's a matter of public record and it's what's C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 115 1 filed in the court, sir. Everyone can look it up. It's a 2 matter of public record. 3 Q. And in your judgment the motion was ridiculous, is that 4 what you meant to convey? 5 A. I don't recall, no. I don't recall. 6 Q. Well, when you said it was ridiculous, what did you mean? 7 A. I don't recall. 8 Q. Well, did you mean that you thought there was no merit to 9 it? 10 A. I don't recall. 11 Q. I mean, you know there's merit to it, right? 12 A. I don't recall. 13 Q. Do you know -- I'm not asking about your recall right now, 14 I'm asking you whether or not there is merit to a motion that 15 said you came into court and lied and lied and lied on March 1, 16 2011. 17 MR. OKULA: Objection to the form, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Sustained as to form. 19 Q. So you don't know why you said it was ridiculous? 20 A. You're correct. I'm not a psychologist. 21 Q. Now, when you went on to tell Judge Pauley "If you want 22 another Clinton appointment, it's not going to happen" -- do 23 you remember saying that? 24 A. I don't recall. 25 Q. So you do not remember saying that? C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 116 1 A. If it's in the record, I probably did say that, sir. 2 Q. Okay, so it's in the record. So why did you say it? 3 A. Probably just being smart. 4 Q. Just being smart. 5 A. Smart a-s-s. 6 Q. So you were being a smart ass to a federal judge, is that 7 what you call it? 8 A. If you need to say it that way, that's your words, not 9 mine. 10 Q. Okay, well, let me ask you this: Are you under the 11 impression that the President of the United States is named 12 Clinton? 13 A. I Googled -- no. Please, stop. No. 14 Q. Why did you refer to another Clinton appointment? 15 A. Because I Googled the judge after the trial was over and I 16 saw he was a Clinton appointee. End of story. Why don't we 17 get on to the meat of this? 18 Q. Ms. Conrad, can you explain for us the connection between 19 Judge Pauley ordering you to appear for a hearing on 20 February 15th and the prospect that Judge Pauley would receive 21 another appoinment to the bench from somebody -- 22 A. No. 23 Q. -- who is not President? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Would you agree with me that in the common parlance that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (29) Page 113 - Page 116 DOJ-OGR-00009242