Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Howard Lutnick And His Trip To Congress (Part 4-7) (7/11/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Howard Lutnick And His Trip To Congress (Part 4-7) (7/11/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right
0:06
back to the Howard Ludnik deposition that he gave to
0:10
Congress Mister Emmer. We discussed your emails earlier, Sir, is
0:14
this HWL email yours? Answer? Yeah? Question, and the email
0:19
chain begins with mister Epstein asking you what do you
0:22
think the prospects for adfin are. Why would mister Epstein
0:26
be emailing you directly about prospects for adfin? Answer? I
0:30
don't know. Adfin was a company that's objective was to
0:33
become an exchange for Internet ads. So it was pursuing
0:37
companies that put out ads like banks do a lot
0:40
of ads, you know, big advertisers and websites. So it
0:44
was marketing to everyone it could possibly find to use
0:47
their services to buy their ads cheaper, you know, for
0:50
the advertiser to not use an ad agency and get
0:53
the money directly, and you know the advertisers are more efficient,
0:57
and so it would have been out talking to everybody,
1:01
So I wouldn't be surprised or it wouldn't surprise me
1:04
that people knew about it. I was not, but it
1:06
wouldn't have been unusual. It was out there trying to
1:10
make to get attention. Question and given your previous testimony,
1:14
as it relates to the emails that you sent, is
1:17
it safe to assume that this response was you personally? Answer?
1:21
This was this was me because it says, hwo question
1:26
and for the record, can you please read the email
1:29
that you sent back? Answer? Yeah, but this stems on
1:32
another note, so it must have stemmed from something else.
1:35
But it says you just want me to read it?
1:38
Answer producing revenue. Finally, this is their year next twelve
1:43
months they need to become economically self sufficient. Question And
1:48
mister Epstein replied to your email and said, thanks, how
1:51
long until Sherry's ready? And can I buy my guesthouse?
1:54
To which you responded probably four years in parentheses Pierre?
2:00
What is Pierre? Answer? So he made a joke that
2:03
he would buy my house as his guest house because
2:06
I had bought the top of the Pierre hotel. It
2:08
was an apartment. It still is a large again unfinished,
2:12
unfinished apartment. So he just got the hotel wrong. Question.
2:17
It wasn't a serious offer by Epstein to purchase your
2:20
town home? Answer it was sort of a snarky joke
2:23
or a joke question. The Committee understands, though public reporting
2:28
and records, that an Epstein affiliated trust had owned that
2:31
townhome that you moved into prior to you. Did Epstein
2:36
during your acquisition of the property. Did Epstein have any
2:39
role in the sale of that property to you? Answer? No,
2:42
I bought my townhouse from someone named Charles de Gunsberg
2:46
who owned it, so Epstein did not own the house.
2:49
So I don't know what that's reference to. Charles de
2:51
Gunsberg owned the house, and I bought the house from Charles. Now,
2:56
mister Spector jumps in. You testified earlier about having one
3:00
distinct four part email exchange with Jeffrey Epstein. Ever, is
3:03
this that email chain, Lutnik, This is two of it.
3:07
It may have been like disconnected. Sorry I can I'm
3:10
holding my hand separate now, Turwilger, the lawyer jumps in,
3:16
mister Emmer on that point, I do think, for the
3:18
sake of completeness, I would just profer to the Committee
3:21
that if we were to look at document EFT Alpha
3:24
zero one five zero seven one eight, you'll see that
3:28
there was a prior communication between Secretary Lutnik and Jeffrey
3:32
Epstein around the building of the Frick expansion. And that's
3:36
how we go from the subject to another note initiated
3:39
by mister Epstein. Mister Emmer, Thank you, mister Emmer. At
3:47
this time, I'd like to introduce what will be marked
3:49
as majority Exhibit number five. And for the record, it
3:52
appears that you are not a recipient of this email.
3:56
And this is an email from Jeffrey Epstein to or
3:58
adapted dated oct Job nineteenth, two thousand and nine, and
4:02
it's bates marked EFTA two four three eight eighty six,
4:07
and it appears to be a message passed along to
4:10
mister Epstein from Rich Barnett about you wanting to speak
4:13
to mister Epstein. Secretary Lutnik. Who is Rich Barnett? Answer?
4:19
He was someone that worked for me at counter Fitzgerald
4:21
so on my staff question, and we're reviewing an email
4:26
from October of two thousand and nine. Do you have
4:28
any recollection of why you would have been trying to
4:30
get in touch with Epstein? Answer? I don't have any recollection,
4:35
but Rich Barnett was responsible for my sort of construction
4:38
and things associated with that, so it may have been
4:41
that I was doing something at my house, but I
4:43
shouldn't speculate. I don't know and I did not speak
4:46
to him. Question. Thank you. At this time, I'd like
4:50
to introduce what will be marked as majority Exhibit six
4:53
and seven. Majority Exhibit six is an email dated Monday,
4:58
April fourth, twenty eleven from Leslie Groff, Jeffrey Epstein's secretary,
5:03
sent to mister Epstein, saying Howard Lutnick returned your call
5:06
and the Bates number EFTA sixty five four five five two.
5:11
Majority Exhibit seven is a calendar reminder dated the very
5:15
next day, April fifth, which appears to show a schedule
5:18
callback between you and mister Epstein. The reminder states Jaye
5:23
to call Howard Lutnik today call Matthew to organize and
5:27
that is Bates mart EFTA zero two one nine one
5:31
two four five. For the record, it appears as though
5:34
you are not a recipient of either one of these exhibits.
5:37
Secretary Lutnick, do you know who miss Leslie Groff is? Answer?
5:42
I do not. Question. According to the email you returned
5:46
Epstein's call, we are early April twenty eleven. Do you
5:50
have any recollection of why you'd be returning a call
5:53
from mister Epstein. Answer, as I think I said my
5:57
opening statement, he had something to tell me, or so
6:00
I was told, is the best of my recollection from
6:02
fifteen years ago. So I must my office must have
6:05
suggested that I call him back to hear what he
6:07
had to say, and we were unable to connect my phone,
6:11
and that led to my second encounter with him, with
6:14
my best recollection being I rang his bell, walked into
6:17
his foyer with my dog. My wife waited outside with
6:20
my other dog, the one that one wouldn't be good
6:24
to bring into someone's house. I waited for him to
6:26
come down. He told me what he had to say,
6:29
and I remember this is a long time ago, but
6:31
my best recollection was it had to do with scaffolding.
6:35
Mister spector question, when you say scaffolding, are you talking
6:39
about the construction on your property or his answer yes, question.
6:44
So it was a discussion between neighbors about work that
6:47
might affect one another answer. I think my best recollection
6:50
is he was planning on doing scaffolding, which would sort
6:53
of be annoying to my property. So he was sort
6:56
of telling me he was something. This is my best
6:59
recollection of an inconsequential and meaningless conversation fifteen years ago.
7:05
So I'm not I'm just saying that's my best recollection.
7:09
Was it the topic of scaffolding? I can't give you more.
7:13
Something else I'll tell you would just be speculating as
7:16
to what it was about. So generally, when you say
7:18
inconsequential and meaningless, in this case, you mean it was
7:22
just kind of a mundane conversation that would be normal
7:25
between neighbors of any sort, and to write. And then
7:28
he had some sort of plan that he in his house,
7:31
and he was letting me know that it would be annoying. Question.
7:35
Thank you, mister Emmer. And this meeting that you referenced
7:39
during your hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee last year,
7:42
you discussed your interaction with Jeffrey Epstein and mentioned an
7:45
hour long meeting at Epstein's home in twenty eleven. Is
7:49
this the same interaction that you just described related to scaffolding?
7:53
Lut Nick. Yeah, his documents, the documents in these files
7:57
had set aside an hour, which is what I was
8:00
referring to. The only interaction I recall was the one
8:03
I just articulated. I didn't have another interaction his schedule
8:07
said other things that was wrong. The only interaction that
8:10
I've ever had. I'm here describing to you accurately what
8:14
my best recollection, literally to my recollection could be. Specter.
8:19
Did the topic of massages ever come up again besides
8:22
that first interaction that you had with Epstein? Answer by Lutnick, No,
8:27
mister Emmer. At this time, I would like to introduce
8:30
what will be marked as majority Exhibit eight. While we're waiting,
8:33
I understand another member is joined. Can you please identify
8:36
yourself for the record, mister James Walkinshaw, Virginia eleven and Rocanna, California, seventeen. Emmer,
8:44
this is Bates marked EFTA four to seven five seven,
8:49
four to two. This is an email chain from May
8:51
of twenty eighteen. Mister Lutnik or Secretary Lutnick, do you
8:55
recall sending this email? Secretary Lutnick knows I've told you
8:59
if it's say is Howard Lutnik. It was sent by
9:01
Matthew Gilbert, and he's the one who sees them, meaning
9:05
I don't I don't see them. They're not literally on
9:08
my computer screen, they're on his spector. I'm sorry if
9:11
you said this earlier, but just for the record, who
9:14
is Gilbert to you? Answer by Lutnick. Mister Gilbert is
9:18
my longtime assistant in my office. He's worked for me
9:21
for like twenty years, Spector, so this would be the
9:24
normal way that he would handle emails from all sorts
9:26
of people, not just Jeffrey Epstein. Lutnick correct. The point
9:30
was if you email that email it was to Matthew Gilbert.
9:33
Everyone learned that he would respond to them. Sometimes he
9:36
would do it on his own, sometimes he would do
9:38
it in mind, but it was always just him. I
9:41
didn't even read them. I didn't see them, Spector. Thank you, Emmer.
9:48
Question and this relates to the blocking of the views
9:50
of the park from your town home. Is that right? Answer? Yeah.
9:55
The Frick is an architecturally important structure built around the
9:59
turn of the century or something like that, and it
10:01
was beautiful and they the museum had wanted to knock
10:04
down parts of it and build a high rise, which
10:07
we found unusual and Bothersome question and you may have
10:11
discussed this in your opening statement, but why did you
10:14
reach out to Epstein related to the Frick? Answer? So,
10:17
the way the block works is there's a multi unit
10:20
co op. That is the first building inside the number
10:22
one or number three, and then there is Jeffrey Epstein's
10:25
townhouse and then mine on the other side. And on
10:28
the other side there was a group of owners, tenants,
10:31
people who lived in that building who were fighting the
10:34
frick building it. They contacted me after a while, and
10:37
then at some point they asked me if I could
10:39
contact Epstein to have him be involved, but it was
10:42
just neighbor. They contacted me, asked me to contact them.
10:45
But by asking me, they asked effectively Matthew Gilbert, who
10:48
then contacted him. Question Secretary Lutnik, the majority's hour is
10:53
coming to an end. I want to ask you some
10:55
general questions as it relates to mister Epstein's crimes. For
10:58
the record, did you ever witness me, mister Epstein have
11:01
sexual contact of any kind with any young woman or girl?
11:05
Answer no question. Did you ever witness mister Epstein receive
11:08
a massage from a young woman or a girl? Answer no.
11:12
Question during your interaction with mister Epstein, did mister Epstein
11:16
ever discuss sexual acts of any kind with you? Answer no,
11:21
other than which he said the right kind of massage.
11:24
Question did you ever see or meet any young women
11:27
or girl at mister Epstein's office or residence, Answer no question.
11:32
Did you ever have any sexual contact with any young
11:35
woman or a girl in the presence of Epstein? Answer
11:38
no question. Did you ever receive a massage from any
11:42
young woman brought to you by or introduced to you
11:45
by mister Epstein or Miss Maxwell? Answer no. Mister Emmer,
11:49
we will go off the record. All right, folks, We're
11:52
going to wrap up right here, and in the next
11:54
episode we'll pick up where we left off. All the
11:57
information that goes with this episode can be found in
12:00
the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another
12:03
episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting
12:07
right back to the Howard Lutnik transcript from his meeting
12:12
with Congress redacted. All right, we can go back on
12:17
the record. Good afternoon, Secretary Lutnik. My name is redacted.
12:21
I'll be conducting most of the questioning for the Minority today.
12:25
Before we begin questioning, I'd like to know for the
12:27
record that this transcribed interview is not being videotaped. The
12:32
Majority has decided that the American people don't deserve to
12:35
watch the testimony that you will provide today. They've decided
12:38
instead that the American people can find and read the
12:41
transcript of your testimony if it's released at some date
12:45
in the future. Today's transcribed interview, originally announced on March third,
12:50
appears designed to preempt the motion to subpoena Secretary lutni'x
12:54
testimony by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, but that does not justify
12:59
keeping these off of camera. Committee Republicans have claimed that
13:04
the investigations being conducted in the interest to transparency for
13:08
the public and for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
13:12
To that end, the Committee has videotaped multiple prominent witnesses
13:16
who have appeared for testimony in the Epstein investigation, and
13:19
the majority has released those videos shortly after the testimony
13:23
was complete. The Committee was videoed and released the testimony
13:28
of Glenn Maxwell, Darren Endyke, Richard Kahn, and Les Wexner.
13:32
Oversight Republicans videotape the testimony of President Bill Clinton and
13:37
former Secretary Hillary Clinton, and those videos were released to
13:40
the public three days after the conclusion of their depositions.
13:45
The American people and the survivors of Epstein's crimes deserve
13:49
the same of today's testimony. The fact that Secretary lutnik
13:52
is present for a transcribed interview rather than a deposition
13:56
does not change our obligation to transparency. Earlier this Congress,
14:01
Oversite Republicans investigated the now dupunk theory that the previous
14:06
administration used an auto pen to take action without President
14:09
Biden's knowledge. As part of that investigation, Oversite Republicans interviewed
14:15
fourteen former Democratic White House officials. The overwhelming majority, eleven
14:20
of the fourteen were conducted as transcribed interviews. Yet every
14:25
single interview, including the transcribed interviews, was videotaped, and every
14:29
single video was released to the public. Committee Republicans have
14:34
set one standard for officials in a democratic administration and
14:37
a separate and less transparent standard for officials in the
14:41
Republican administration. That is a political distinction, not a principled one.
14:47
To be clear, the Minority welcomes Secretary lutnix appearance and testimony,
14:52
but we believe the American people should be able to
14:55
watch today's interview and reach their own conclusions about today's testimony.
15:00
With that, I will move on to substantive questions. Good afternoon,
15:04
Secretary Lutnik. As I said, my name is redacted, and
15:08
as you know, today's conversation is going to focus on
15:10
your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I would like to start
15:14
with the interview that you gave to the New York
15:16
Post in October of last year. I know you discussed
15:19
it a little bit in the previous round. Some of
15:22
these questions might be repetitive to some degree. I'll try
15:25
to minimize that to the extent possible, but there's going
15:28
to be some overlap. In that interview last year, you
15:31
describe your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in detail. Substantial parts
15:36
of that interview have since been called into question, so
15:39
we will go over the interview one piece out of
15:41
time and establish which parts are accurate. So I'll introduce,
15:46
as minority exhibit a written transcript of the portion of
15:51
the interview that related to mister Epstein. I'll give you
15:54
a moment to look it over if you'd like to.
15:57
Secretary Lutnik, can I have a copy of that for
15:59
my lawyer? Redacted? Yeah? There were I think there were
16:04
three in there redacted. Yeah, And they'll always hand you
16:08
three or four of the council to look at mister Mayron,
16:11
who prepared the transcript redacted? It was prepared by us.
16:15
We can confirm to you the accuracy of it. If
16:17
you have some specific reason to believe that part of
16:20
it's not accurate. Of course, we're happy to discuss that. Mayron.
16:25
The first line says, I would be remised. Is that
16:28
what was said? Redacted? Yeah? That was our best interpretation.
16:33
I think you could reasonably interpret it as likely being remiss. Question.
16:38
We're going to go over it one by one as well, Lutnick,
16:43
that's all right. I'm just going to read it quickly.
16:46
Question of course. Answer, okay, question, I'm going to break
16:51
it up in pieces. The only thing I will do
16:53
is skip the parts where the interviewer interrupted you with
16:56
the words like right or interesting. Just starting at the outset,
17:00
you were asked how well you knew Jeffrey Epstein, and
17:02
you started by saying, quote, all right, so we are
17:05
in number eleven and he lives at number nine. So
17:09
is it correct that you did and maybe still do.
17:11
I'm Machur live at eleven East seventy first Street in
17:15
New York City. Answer, yeah, I have a townhouse at
17:18
eleven East seventy first Street. Question and is that what
17:22
you were referring to here when you said number eleven?
17:25
Answer yeah. Question And as far as you know, is
17:28
it correct that mister Epstein lived at nine East seventy
17:30
first Street. Answer yeah, that was his residence. Question And
17:35
is that what you were referring to when you said
17:37
number nine? Answer yeah. Question. Is it correct that those
17:41
two homes are adjacent to each other? Answer yes, question
17:45
they share a wall. Answer yes. Question. And then you said, quote,
17:50
so we renovate, we buy our house, and our house
17:53
is pigeons and mice. Okay, that's it. It was derelict, right,
17:57
So we build, we rebuild our house, move in two
18:00
thousand and five, and I'll stop there. So I heard
18:03
you say in a previous round you bought your home
18:05
I think in nineteen ninety seven. Is that correct? Answer?
18:09
That's correct? Question? And did you know at the time
18:12
you purchased the home that you the home had been
18:15
previously owned by both Jeffrey and less Wexner. Answer? I
18:20
don't know. I know I bought it from Charles de Gunsberg,
18:23
so that I remember. I don't know if I knew
18:25
anything else. Question Is it that you were not sure
18:28
whether that you knew at the time that the home
18:30
had previously owned by Jeffrey Epstein and less Wexner answer,
18:35
when I bought the house, I didn't know. I don't
18:37
recall knowing. Question you don't recall whether or not you
18:40
knew at the time. Is that right? Answer? Right? Question? Okay?
18:44
Is it possible that you knew? Is it possible that
18:46
you did not know? Am I interpreting that correctly? Answer? No,
18:51
I don't recall knowing. I recall what I did know.
18:54
Was I bought the house from Charles de Gunsberg. That
18:56
I know. I don't know if I knew who owned
18:58
it previously. I can't say, as I sit here today,
19:01
from whatever almost thirty years ago, what I knew or
19:04
didn't know, But I certainly didn't know when I bought it. Question.
19:08
I'm sorry, there is just a little contradiction between those
19:11
two parts. You're not sure today whether or not you
19:14
know at the time that the home was owned by
19:16
Jeffrey Epstein. Is that fair answer? No, I bought my
19:19
house from Charles de Gunsberg, and I do not recall
19:23
knowing when I bought the house who owned it previously. Question, So,
19:26
sitting here today, you cannot be certain as to whether
19:29
you know or not or knew at the time who
19:33
the previous owners were. Is that what I hear you saying. Answer, Well,
19:37
I'm trying to be clear. I remember clearly I bought
19:40
the house from Charles de Gunsberg. He was the owner
19:43
of the house. I can't remember, as I sit here today,
19:46
almost thirty years later, whether I ever knew subsequently that
19:50
I learned who owned the house previously. I just don't
19:53
remember as I sit here. Question. But the narrow question
19:56
is just at the time you bought the home, did
19:59
you know the home was previously owned by Jeffrey Epstein?
20:03
And I think I think you're saying you're just not
20:05
sure either way, it was a long time ago. Answer,
20:08
I don't think so. Question. I'm sorry, No, I don't
20:11
think so. Is unclear for us? For me, No, you
20:14
don't think you knew or you're just not sure whether
20:18
you knew or not? Answer, I know I bought the
20:21
house from Charles de Gunsberg, that I knew. Question. I'm
20:25
crystal clear on that part, no doubt about it. The
20:28
narrow question is just at the time of purchase, did
20:30
you know that the home had previously been owned by
20:34
Jeffrey Epstein answer before Charles de Gunsberg owned it. I
20:39
don't remember whether I ever learned that at the time,
20:41
meaning at the time I purchased it. I didn't learn that.
20:44
I don't know. I don't recall I don't know. Question
20:48
you don't recall whether or not you knew at the
20:50
time you purchased it? Right? Answer, when I agreed to
20:53
buy the house, I surely didn't know. How was that?
20:56
Is that helpful question? Well, it is, but it's not
20:59
quite the same thing has the earlier statement. I'm not
21:02
suggesting that you did or did not know. It's just
21:05
I think you said heard you say it was thirty
21:07
years ago. I don't recall whether or not I knew,
21:11
But there have been a few statements that suggest, no,
21:14
I did not know that it was previously owned by Epstein.
21:17
So I just want to pin that down and which
21:19
one of those it is. Answer? I don't know, and
21:23
I don't think I ever knew that Jeffrey Epstein owned
21:25
the house that I bought. Is that helpful question? Yeah?
21:28
Is that new information for you here today? Answer that?
21:31
What question that Jeffrey Epstein previously owned your house? Answer? Yes?
21:36
Question okay, answer I don't know that to be true.
21:40
Question has it ever been suggested to you or have
21:43
you ever heard that Epstein previously owned your home? Answer?
21:47
I don't think that's true, So I guess, as I
21:49
sit here today, I don't think that's true. Question I
21:52
got that, but that's not quite the question I asked.
21:56
Has it ever been suggested to you or have you
21:58
ever heard somebody say that Epstein previously owned your home? Answer?
22:03
I can't recall as I sit here today. Question is
22:06
it correct that you did some kind of large scale
22:08
renovation project on the home? Answer in my home? Yes,
22:12
of course. Question and is it correct? I think I
22:15
heard you say in the previous round that you moved
22:17
in in two thousand and five. Answer yeah, question okay.
22:21
So the next part is quote, Okay, Jeffrey Epstein's arrested
22:25
and like, oh wait, I think or something like that.
22:27
So knock on the door. His assistant on like a
22:30
Saturday says, mister Epstein's your neighbor, and he'd like to
22:33
invite you over for some coffee, so I can come over.
22:36
The first part of that, which is that mister Epstein
22:39
was arrested in six but he did not plead guilty
22:42
to solicitation of a minor in two thousand and eight.
22:45
A question for you is, and I think you described
22:47
it in some detail previously, is it correct that mister
22:50
Epstein's assistant did knock on your door on a Saturday
22:53
morning because mister Epstein wanted to invite you over for coffee. Answer?
22:58
Say that again. Question Is it correct that, as far
23:01
as you can recall, mister Epstein's assistant knocked on your door,
23:05
to the best of your recollection on a Saturday morning
23:07
because Epstein wanted to invite you over for coffee. Answer?
23:12
I don't know if it was Saturday or not, but
23:14
I do recall that someone who will worked for him
23:16
knocked on our door and invited us for coffee. Question
23:20
Was it framed as mister Epstein would like to invite
23:22
you over for coffee? Answer? I wasn't. The person didn't
23:27
tell me. They told me someone who worked for me.
23:29
It was an assistant, someone who worked for Epstein knocked
23:32
on the door and spoke to someone who worked for
23:34
me and said, your neighbor would like to invite you
23:36
over for coffee. But it's not a conversation I participated in.
23:40
So I'm trying to just give you the context. Question,
23:44
I understand you are not directly a party to that conversation.
23:48
Answer I was not. Question. The next part is quote,
23:52
so my wife and I go next door. You know,
23:54
we walk the seven steps right to the next door,
23:57
next house for coffee. We share a wall, right so
24:00
it's New York City. So he invites us in. We
24:02
have coffee in this and he says, do you want
24:05
a tour? We said great, I'll stop there. So is
24:08
it correct that you and your wife did go over
24:10
to Epstein's house that day? Answer? I don't know if
24:13
it was that day. Question, it might have been a
24:15
later date. Answer correct. Question. Is it correct that mister
24:19
Epstein did offer you a tour? Answer? Yeah. Question and
24:23
is it correct that you and your wife did agree
24:25
to that tour? Answer yeah. Question. Prior to this interaction,
24:29
did you have any knowledge of who Jeffrey Epstein was? Answer?
24:33
Not that I can think of now, No question. I
24:37
think in the interview you then said that he, meaning Epstein,
24:42
has got a really big house. I think we all
24:44
at this point understand that that is an accurate statement.
24:48
And then you were asked whether you visited every room
24:50
of Epstein's house, and you said, quote he's got Well,
24:53
I'll tell you. So his house is like super big,
24:56
really wide, and so he gives me a tour of
24:58
the living room, big living room, and then across from
25:00
it double doors. I assume it's a dining room, and
25:03
he opens the doors and there's a massage table in
25:06
the middle of the room and candles all around and stuff,
25:10
and they'll stop there. So is it correct that he
25:13
did give you a tour and that you recall the
25:15
tour as you described it here? Answer? Yes, we were
25:19
in the living room for coffee, and my recollection is
25:22
we went across the hall to the next room, which
25:24
he opened the door. I assumed it was a dining room,
25:27
and that's the massage table as I described there. Question
25:31
is the part about the candles accurate to your recollection? Answer? Yes,
25:35
question where the candles lit? Answer? I don't recall. All right, folks,
25:40
we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
25:42
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
25:44
we left off. All the information that goes with this
25:47
episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
25:51
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein chronicles. In
25:55
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
25:57
off with the Howard Lutnek deposition. Question Okay, and then
26:01
you said, quote, so I asked very insightful cutting questions.
26:05
I say, to a massage table in the middle of
26:07
your house, how often do you have a massage? And
26:10
he says every day? And then he gets like really close,
26:14
like weirdly close to me, and he says, and the
26:17
right kind of massage. I'll stop there. Is that statement
26:20
accurate to the best of your recollection? Answer? Well, I'm
26:23
being sarcastic when I say I asked very insightful cutting questions.
26:27
I'm just kidding, and it's generally right. I'm not saying
26:30
it's exact precisely right, but generally yeah, that's what I recall. Question,
26:35
as far as you remember, are any of these detailed
26:37
sort of embellishments, like do you recall him actually getting
26:41
weirdly close to you? Answer? I think that's right. I
26:44
think that's right what I said. Question All right? And
26:46
then you said, now my wife is standing there, so
26:48
she looks at me and I look at her, and
26:51
we say I'm sorry, we have to go, and we left.
26:54
I'll stop right there. Do you recall that happening? Answer? Well,
26:58
I don't. I recall a sense of this. I don't
27:00
recall exactly saying those words, but I certainly recall a
27:03
sense of that that we decided we had to go.
27:07
Question do you recall a verbal exchange to the effect
27:11
or more of a general sense? Answer? I don't recall
27:14
the precise nature of the words, a general sense that
27:17
we excused ourselves. Question and that's what I was going
27:20
to ask. Is that the sort of cut off the
27:23
tour early as far as you can remember? Answer? Yes.
27:26
Question did mister Epstein have any particular reaction to you
27:30
sort of abruptly excusing yourself? Answer not that I recall.
27:34
Question did you give a particular reason for needing to
27:37
excuse yourself? Answer? I don't remember anything other than we
27:41
decided to excuse ourselves. Question and you said quote and
27:45
in the six or eight steps it takes to get
27:48
from his house to my house, my wife and I
27:50
decided that I'll never be in the room with that
27:52
disgusting person ever. Again, I'll stop right there. Is it
27:56
true that before you got back to your home, you
27:59
and your wife decided that you would never be in
28:01
the same room as mister Epstein. Again, answer, I think
28:05
the meaning of that is right, which is what we discussed,
28:08
That I would not put myself in a situation with
28:10
him again, that I would not have a personal or
28:13
a professional relationship with him, and I would avoid him.
28:17
That was the point of the discussion. It was an
28:19
informal conversation that I'm recalling twenty years later, but the
28:22
point of it was right, question, and so that is
28:28
what I'd like to do, is separate the theme or
28:30
the idea from the literal accuracy of the specific words.
28:33
So when you say, my wife and I decided that
28:36
I will never be in the room with that disgusting
28:38
person again, is it? It's not necessarily a literal decision
28:42
that you will never allow yourself to be in the
28:44
room with them. Again, It's just you don't want to
28:46
build a relationship with them. Is that it? Answer, I
28:50
would not establish a personal and professional relationship with him,
28:53
and I would avoid him. So it was basically a
28:55
conversation with me and my wife that says avoid to
29:00
the discussion to have avoid, which I did. Question, was it,
29:04
as far as you can remember, a decision that as
29:06
you described it, If I see him in a room
29:08
in the future, I will not be in that room.
29:10
Was it that level or was that an embellishment or
29:14
some sort of extra language answer. Remember it's a podcast
29:17
twenty years later that I'm trying to make a point
29:19
that I and I didn't by the way, I avoided
29:22
having a personal and professional relationship with him. I avoided them.
29:26
So I think I was right. I think the point
29:28
of the podcast is right. What I'd said was right.
29:30
I avoided him and I never put myself in a
29:33
situation with him again personally me as a man. He
29:37
had no boundaries. I avoided him. Question. Yeah, so the
29:40
question of what the interactions were later in the future
29:44
after the tour, will walk through those you've done some
29:47
of that. I was just trying to get a really
29:50
clear sense of what you will called the discussion being
29:52
on the day of the tour. It sounds like, but
29:55
please you tell me, was it It's not that it
29:58
was a literal decision to never be in this physical
30:00
room again, because that's what the words say. But I
30:03
think you're saying it's not literally accurate answer. It was
30:07
a podcast, and I said in the next words, that's
30:10
my story. So it was the podcast, I was describing
30:12
twenty years later a conversation I had with my wife.
30:15
It was informal. It wasn't trying to be literal. It
30:19
was trying to tell a story and be descriptive, which
30:22
I thought was an accurate description, which was what I
30:24
would avoid establishing a professional and personal relationship with him.
30:28
I would avoid them, and I did. So, it says
30:31
I will never I wasn't. I wouldn't say it was literal,
30:34
meaning I was. He did tell me something in the
30:36
foyer while I had my dog. But the point of it,
30:40
I think was accurate, actually and literally the way I live,
30:43
which was that I did not establish a personal or
30:46
a professional relationship with him. I avoided him, and I
30:49
saw him two other times in the whole in my
30:51
whole life to other times. That's it. So the next
30:55
part says, so I was never in the room with
30:58
him socially for business or even philanthropy. Is that statement true? Answer? Yes, question,
31:04
so is it your testimony that you were never physically
31:07
in a room with Jeffrey Epstein after the day of
31:09
that tour. Answer, again, this was differentiating me so that
31:13
I would not put myself Howard Lutnik in a position
31:16
with him to be alone with them. So I was
31:18
with my wife with him, as I described earlier today
31:21
at a lunch on the island seven years later, and
31:24
I did listen to him tell me about scaffolding in
31:26
his foyer, but I was not. Those were not social
31:29
engagements with them by me, business engagements with them by me,
31:34
or philanthropic engagements with them, and me as a person.
31:38
I think that is accurate questions. So I'm focused on
31:41
the single sentence and I'll read it back quote. So
31:44
I was never in the room with them socially for
31:46
business or even philanthropy. So is it your testimony that
31:50
that sentence is, in a literal sense accurate answer. It's
31:55
accurate as to what I meant, which is I, Howard Lutnik,
31:58
as a man, would not be in a room or
32:00
a situation with them because I felt them gross and
32:03
inappropriate and not having boundaries that I would not put
32:06
myself in a room with them socially which I did not,
32:09
professionally in business which I did not, and philanthropy which
32:13
I did not. I've described in detail the only two
32:16
times I saw them, and they were not social, they
32:19
were not business, and they were not philanthropic for me.
32:23
I had lunch with them with my wife and family,
32:26
which I have described in detail. But that was not
32:29
me putting myself with them, which is what I said,
32:32
and which is the point that I tried to make. Question.
32:35
And so is it that you agree you were in
32:37
the room with them full stop, but you don't believe
32:40
either of those instances you've described qualify as being social
32:44
or for business or for philanthropy. And that's how the
32:47
sentence ends up being accurate for you answer, this is
32:52
me talking. The point I made was that as a man,
32:55
I would not put myself and that's the discussion with
32:58
my wife, right. It's an informal discus with my wife
33:01
as we walked away from his home where he said
33:03
something inappropriate, and we discussed that I would put myself
33:07
or not put myself in a circumstance with them, and
33:09
I would avoid them, and so I did. I avoided them.
33:12
I was never Howard Lutnik. I was never in the
33:15
room with them socially, for business or philanthropy alone in
33:18
a situation where I could be at all with a
33:21
person who I found inappropriate. So that's correct. It's not
33:24
literally that I did not say that. I was not
33:27
intending to say that I was literally never singularly in
33:31
the room with them, including with other people like my
33:33
wife and my children. That's not what I was saying.
33:37
I was saying that I would never put myself in
33:38
a position that would be with him alone. Why would
33:42
I do that? And I said wouldn't and didn't. So
33:46
I thought that was accurate. Question. So from your point
33:50
of view, just as a reader of a very simple,
33:52
straightforward sentence, I think we can agree that you were
33:55
in the room with Jeffrey Epstein subsequent to the tour
33:58
of his home. Is that right answer, I, without my wife,
34:03
was not in the room with them socially for business
34:05
or philanthropy. I was with them with my wife and
34:08
family for lunch on the island in twenty twelve, which
34:11
I have gone through. But I was never in social
34:14
situations with them, Howard Luttnik. I was never in a
34:16
business situation with him Howard Lutnik, and I was never
34:20
in a philanthropic situation with him Howard Lutnik. Ever, question, Yeah,
34:26
it's just you drifted a bit from the question. Is
34:29
it correct that you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein?
34:31
Subsequent to the day of the tour. Answer. I'm going
34:35
to stick to my answer. I thought I was descriptive
34:37
and accurate. Question. But if I could just get an
34:40
answer to the question itself, which is is a correct
34:43
that you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein in
34:46
a literal sense subsequent to the day of the tour
34:49
of his home. Answer? Again, I have described it correctly,
34:53
and I'm going to stick to my answer. Question, And
34:57
you interpreted, if I'm hearing it correctly, you interpreted the
34:59
world in this statement to mean you alone? Is that right? Answer?
35:05
It's more than interpreted. I'm the one who said it.
35:07
I'm telling you what I meant. I'm telling you what
35:09
I meant, and that's what I said, Which is that?
35:12
And I've already described it? Question? But is it right
35:16
that you intended to convey As far as you can
35:18
recall from the interview last year, you intended to convey
35:21
the word I, that you were speaking only about yourself individually,
35:26
not in the context of anybody other than you and
35:28
Epstein being in the room when you said I, you
35:32
just meant I. Secretary Lutnik alone was never in the
35:34
room with Epstein. Answer. I think that's generally right. I'm
35:38
talking to my wife and formally as we leave, and
35:41
we were discussing me, and that's the only person we
35:43
were discussing is me, and that I would avoid. And
35:47
I did question do you? And you may have touched
35:50
on this apologies if you did the island visit, I
35:53
think you characterize that as not social. Did I hear
35:56
that correctly? Answer? No? Question? Would you characterize the island
36:01
visit as social? Answer? I would describe a lunch with
36:03
my wife and my family and the other couple in
36:06
their family. Yeah, I would describe that as a social lunch,
36:09
meaningless and inconsequential social lunch. I agree. Question Okay, so
36:14
then is it correct to say that you were in
36:16
a room with Jeffrey Epstein socially? But from what I
36:19
hear you testifying because there were other people present, this
36:23
statement from the interview was still accurate. Answer. The statement
36:27
was accurate because as the person who said it, in
36:30
describing the conversation and informal conversation I had with my wife,
36:34
I was describing that I would not be in the
36:36
room with them socially, and I would not put myself
36:38
in a position which I never was you are describing
36:42
something entirely different than what I was expressing, which is
36:45
a conversation with my wife where she and I discussed
36:48
that I would not put myself in there. That's why
36:51
I said. I didn't say we. It would have been
36:54
easy for me to say we. I said, as I
36:56
was discussing with my wife, I would not. So that's
36:59
the difference I think I am. I was accurate. I
37:02
think I described it accurately. I don't want it to
37:05
be modified in any way. It was I would not
37:09
be in the room with them socially which I was not,
37:11
for business, which I was not, or philanthropic, which I
37:14
was not. So I believe what I said was accurate.
37:18
I believe what I said was accurate when I said it,
37:20
and I believe it now. So I didn't say we
37:22
would never. I said I would never question. Thank you.
37:27
All Right, We're going to wrap up right here, and
37:29
in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna
37:31
pick up where we left off. All the information that
37:34
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
37:38
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
37:41
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to
37:44
Howard Lutnik and his deposition with Congress question thank you. Sorry.
37:51
So the last few questions, they've been focused on the
37:54
sentence in which you described, not what you and your
37:57
wife were talking about or what you were envisioning. It
38:01
was the sentence where you describe the nature of your
38:03
interaction with Ebstein or lack thereof. So you said, quote,
38:08
I was never in the room with them socially for
38:10
business or even philanthropy. I think we agreed the island
38:13
visit was social in nature. But I've heard you testify
38:17
that this sentence is accurate as it reads. They're on
38:20
the paper, and I think the way that you arrive
38:24
at that conclusion, if I'm interpreting your testimony correctly, is
38:27
that you've said that you've never been in the room
38:29
with Ebstein. You meant a loan, not in the company
38:32
of other people. Is that right answer? No, it's not.
38:35
It's that I, Howard Lutnak, not me, not we, me
38:39
and my wife. So when my wife and I are
38:42
talking as we leave the residence, we discussed that I
38:45
would not put myself in this situation, so I didn't
38:48
say we would not. So we were with them for
38:51
lunch on the island. I did not go alone. Whether
38:54
we were there with other people there or not, is
38:57
not the point I'm making. I'm saying, I am not
39:00
accompanied by my wife, would not put myself in that
39:03
situation that could possibly be with this person, even if
39:06
he was with other people. It's not alone alone, it's
39:10
me unaccompanied because we found him to be discussing question.
39:14
And I'll just clarify, I have moved on past the
39:17
conversation between you and your wife. That's not what I'm
39:20
asking about. What I'm asking about is the sentence from
39:23
an interview in which you described your past interactions with
39:27
Jeffrey Epstein. Not what you intended in two thousand and five,
39:30
what actually happened, and your description of that was that
39:34
you had been in the room with them socially for
39:36
business or even philanthropy. We all understand that you were
39:39
in the room with them in a social setting, but
39:42
you have insisted that this sentence is accurate. So I
39:46
just that does not make sense on its face, and
39:49
I just want to understand how that could be answer.
39:52
I refers to Howard Ludnik, We refers to my wife
39:55
and myself together. I didn't say we didn't discuss that
39:58
we would never be with them. We disc us that
40:00
I as a man would not, and I, as a man,
40:03
was never. So I think this is entirely accurate. Howard
40:06
Lutnik was never with them socially, philanthropically, right, or in
40:11
a business setting. I was never. I was with my
40:14
wife on two meaningless and inconsequential interactions, but I was
40:17
never with them. So that was the point. He was
40:21
an inappropriate person, which we all learned in twenty nineteen,
40:24
wildly inappropriate or horrible person, and I was never with him.
40:28
I was never with him. I was with them with
40:31
my wife on two meaningless occasions, but I was never
40:34
with them. Therefore, I can never be anything remotely inappropriate
40:39
because I wouldn't put myself in that situation. And that's
40:42
the discussion I had with my wife question. And so, really,
40:45
what it sounds like is that you intended to convey
40:48
You would have read, so, I was never in the
40:50
room with him alone socially for business or philanthropy. Does
40:54
that accurately characterize what you intended by that sentence? Answer it?
41:00
But then you would have been asking me, well, did
41:02
you mean other human beings in the room? I was
41:05
saying I wouldn't have been there unaccompanied by, in this
41:08
particular example, my wife. So I would not go unaccompanied.
41:12
I didn't mean that there couldn't be other people in
41:14
the room. I'm not saying alone. I'm saying I wouldn't
41:17
go and put myself in a situation where I was
41:19
unaccompanied with him, because he's disgusting. So you never know
41:24
what someone without boundaries what might occur. I had no
41:27
interest in being there with him. That's why I used
41:29
the word I. I didn't use the word we. Question,
41:33
and so it sounds like specifically even narrower than that
41:36
you intended to convey, I was never in a room
41:38
with him unaccompanied by my wife, socially for business or philanthropy.
41:43
Is that the nature of the intention? Answer? Yeah, question, Okay.
41:47
I think that statement as it reads is a very
41:49
simple grammatical sentence and has been interpreted by just about
41:53
anybody who has heard it as reading exactly how it says, quote,
41:56
I was never in the room with Epstein socially. Could
41:59
you understand and out folks I think have felt misled
42:02
by that remark, Mister Tellwinger, I would object. I think
42:07
you're just asking him to speculate what other people thought
42:10
redacted question. Yeah, I mean, it's not a legal sense.
42:15
You surely are familiar at this point with the fact
42:17
that that remark, when it was made, was heard to
42:19
mean what it says, which is that you are not
42:22
in the room with Epstein socially for business or philanthropy.
42:26
It turns out you were at the island socially. Folks
42:29
have viewed that, I think as a willful misrepresentation. I've
42:32
heard your testimony here as to what the intention was.
42:35
Is there a perception on your part that the statement,
42:38
as you said, was misleading. Answer, it was not misleading. No,
42:43
you know what I said, and you know what I meant,
42:45
and it's clear from the words that I was accurate.
42:48
Question and the phrase one and done was used several
42:51
other times. That's my story, one and absolutely done. Just
42:55
from a general point of view, you describe two subsequent
42:58
interactions after the tour, once and done suggests it was
43:02
one and done. Did you understand that there was more
43:05
than one subsequent interaction when you use the phrase one
43:08
and done? Answer again, the point I was making is
43:13
that I wanted to be clear on a podcast that
43:15
I was never with them, which I was not. As
43:17
I said, I was never with them, meaning I was
43:20
never in a situation with them. I was with my
43:22
wife and they were meaningless and inconsequential, but contextually so
43:27
people would understand I was never with them in any
43:30
other manner, I Howard Lutnik, one person was never in
43:33
a situation, so you couldn't take it out of context.
43:36
I was never with them. Question, and we'll get to
43:39
some other folks questions here, but what does the phrase
43:43
one and done mean to you or what is your
43:46
understanding of the meaning of that phrase? Answer? I avoided them,
43:50
and I was never with them as a person, as
43:52
a man, I was never with them redacted. I'm going
43:57
to ask some questions from members of Congress that are here.
44:00
Mister Conna, thank you, mister secretary. You have said, quote
44:04
what happened in that massage room, I assume was on
44:07
video when you were there with Epstein? How did you
44:10
know what was on video? Did mister Epstein ever tell
44:12
you that he recorded people? Lett Nick Know? That was
44:15
just me speculating for a podcast. Conna, did you ever
44:19
see any recordings lett Nick Know? Conna, did you have
44:23
any reason to know other than speculation that there were
44:27
videos taking place. Lett Nick know it was speculating for
44:30
a podcast. Conna. Well, what was the speculation based on? Lutnick?
44:36
Just raw speculation, nothing, Conna. And you said also that
44:40
Epstein was the greatest black mailer ever, that's how he
44:43
made his money. What was the premise behind that? I mean,
44:46
how did you know that, Lutnick? I was just speculating
44:50
for a podcast, Conna. But what was I mean, you
44:53
speculate on a lot of things. There's a reason you speculate.
44:56
What was the reason. Why did you believe that to
44:58
be true? Lutnick? He seemed to have a lot of money.
45:01
That's why I was speculating. I was just speculating. Question.
45:05
Do you know anyone that he blackmailed or hurt anyone
45:08
that he blackmailed? Lutnick? No, Conna. Have you heard anyone
45:11
say that they fell pressure with him and had to
45:13
pay him? Lutnick? No, Conna. Did you believe that he
45:17
engaged in blackmail? Lutnick? It was my speculation at the time, Conna.
45:22
Is it still your belief Lutnick? No, Conna. Now you
45:25
believe he didn't engage in blackmail? Lutnick, Yes, I don't
45:30
believe he did question, Conna, so you said that you
45:33
have a different view of it then you did on
45:35
the podcast. Now, Lutnick, I do, Conna, And why is that?
45:40
Lut Nick, Because there are people who have been from
45:43
the administration who have all the details, who have said so,
45:46
and I credit what they say, Conna. First Lady Malania
45:49
Trump said that each and every woman should have her
45:51
day to tell her story in public. Then and only
45:54
then will we have the truth. Do you agree with
45:56
the first lady? Lutnick? I support the first lady? Sure, question, Conna.
46:01
Do you agree with the statement? Lutnick. I don't agree
46:04
or disagree. I just support her, Conna. She also said
46:07
that she supports the full investigation and the release of
46:10
the remaining files. Do you support her on that? Lutnick,
46:15
I'll leave that to the administration. I don't have an
46:17
opinion one way or the other. Conna, Well, I mean,
46:20
do you support her on the fact that she's calling
46:21
for an investigation and releasing the Epstein files. Lutnick, Again,
46:26
I'll leave that to the administration itself. Conna, you don't
46:29
have an opinion on whether you support the first Lady's call. Terwillinger,
46:34
the other lawyer, for Lutnick jumps in, I think the
46:37
question has been asked several times and answered. Conna, you
46:41
said that technically you were accurate in this podcast about
46:45
never wanting to be in the room with Epstein as
46:47
a matter not a legal matter or as a matter
46:49
of legality, But do you have some regret that you
46:52
should have been more forthcoming if you had to do
46:55
it again? And I say I did have these two
46:58
encounters that you say or trivial. Lutnick, No, this was
47:02
a podcast and I think I made it the point reasonably. Conna,
47:06
you have no. Yeah, look, I actually believe you that
47:08
you didn't go and try to do some of the
47:11
other disgusting men did with Epstein. But you don't have
47:14
some sense that maybe you should have been more forthcoming.
47:16
I'm not saying it's sort of career ending. I'm just saying,
47:19
now you see that sort of people are saying that
47:22
you weren't fully transparent. Would you have said the same
47:25
thing or do you have some sense of maybe I
47:27
should have mentioned a couple more things. Lutnick, No, for
47:31
the podcast, But I'm saying for the podcast, I made
47:34
the point. Even if you look at it, you'd say, well, Secretary,
47:37
Lutnik said he wasn't with the guy, and now that
47:40
I have full information, he actually wasn't with the person.
47:43
I mean, that's true, mister Conna. You acknowledge the fact
47:47
that you had these things that came out in the files.
47:50
Do you think that before that you should have said
47:53
something at that point, whether it was just a podcast
47:56
or not. You know, no one's perfect. I'm just saying,
47:58
in retrospect, do you think that you should have been
48:00
a little bit more forthcoming on those two incidents? And
48:04
maybe it would have been as big of a deal
48:06
if you had said that, Lutnick, I thought I'd described
48:10
an informal conversation with my wife from twenty years ago
48:13
to make the point I was trying to make. I
48:15
thought I made it reasonably. I tried to make it reasonably, Conna,
48:19
So you have no regret, Lutnick, No, Conna. I'm done,
48:25
mister submerannium. Thank you, Thank you, mister secretary for being
48:30
here today as well. I appreciate your time. I'm just
48:33
having struggling with this one and absolutely done. Does that
48:37
mean where you're trying to imply that you had only
48:40
met with Epstein once when you said that lud Nick.
48:43
I was trying to let the podcast understand that I
48:46
would never be with him. He was a disgusting person,
48:49
which we all learned after twenty nineteen. Mister Submaranium, Oh,
48:54
I know that Lutnick, but I was never with him,
48:57
And the point I was making was that I was
48:59
never with them, and that the people listening to the
49:01
podcast should understand. I never put myself in a situation
49:05
where I was with them where anything could have possibly happened.
49:09
That's why I said, That's why I described the conversation
49:12
I had it with my wife reasonably accurately, informally, but
49:15
reasonably accurately. Question, when you're sitting down with them talking
49:20
about scaffolding, aren't you with them in that room? Even
49:23
if your wife is there? You're both with them, right Lutnick? Yeah. Question?
49:28
Are you and I with each other right now? Are
49:31
we in the same room? Lutnick yeah. Question, there's other
49:34
people here, right, but you and I are both here
49:38
with each other right now, So how can you say
49:40
that you are not with them? Subsequently, That's what I'm
49:43
trying to understand, Lutnick. I think I reasonably described an
49:47
informal conversation. I had it with my wife that would
49:50
be understood by people who were married, that we had
49:53
an encounter with someone who was inappropriate, and we discussed
49:56
that I would avoid them. And I think everybody who's
49:59
married understand that when they have a conversation with their wife,
50:02
that the wife can say you avoid them. It's a
50:05
conversation that everybody, I think understands. And to suggest that
50:08
I was being literal, that I would literally never be
50:11
in the room with them, is not what I intended.
50:14
It was my words. Question, I understand Lutnik, and I'm
50:19
telling you that is not what I said. I said
50:21
it was a conversation, an informal conversation with me and
50:25
my wife, And I think people who are married would
50:27
understand that my wife was saying to me, avoid him.
50:30
He has no boundaries. And you know for a fact
50:33
that I did avoid him. I literally avoided him. Question.
50:38
I don't know that for a fact, because there's two
50:40
other occasions where you didn't avoid him. You did not
50:43
have to go to his island, so you didn't avoid
50:45
him in that case. You didn't have to go talk
50:47
to him about scaffolding, so you didn't avoid him then either.
50:50
But when you say one and done. That means one
50:53
occasion in which you were with him, even with your wife.
50:56
So would you say that was not an accurate statement
50:59
to say one and absolutely done. And remember this is
51:03
two separate times you're talking. You're talking once about with
51:07
his wife, about the conversation with your wife rather and
51:10
then you're separately saying so I was never with them,
51:13
never in the room with them socially, so that was separate.
51:16
You were not talking about the conversation with your wife
51:19
here you said one and absolutely done. And after that
51:23
you said, that's my story, So you were implying that
51:26
you had only been there, been with them once. Lutnick.
51:29
I tried to describe it in detail, So I'll stick
51:31
with my description, which I gave you in the same
51:34
exact topic. Question, I'm gonna switch gears a bit. Have
51:38
you talked to the Commerce Department about your inclusion in
51:41
the Epstein files or appearance here today? Lutnick, Yeah. Question.
51:45
What were those conversations about generally Lutnick, that I would
51:49
be attending and that I have a lawyer. Have you
51:52
used Commerce Department resources or staff to discuss this or
51:56
talk about your defense today? Lutnick, No question, and Have
51:59
you had conversations with President Trump about Jeffrey Epstein or
52:05
the Epstein files generally, or your involvement with any of them? Lutnick.
52:10
I'm not going to discuss conversations I had with President,
52:12
but you shouldn't take it one way or the other.
52:14
I'm just not going to have discussions on it. But
52:17
please don't take from that one way or the other.
52:19
With respect to the conversation question, have you had conversations
52:24
with Attorney General Bondi or former Attorney General Bondi or
52:28
the current Attorney General about the Epstein case? Answer? No, question,
52:32
did this ever come up during your vetting you were
52:35
living next door to Jeffrey Epstein or any association with them? Lutnick,
52:38
not that I can remember. Question and the last question
52:42
you mentioned that you were you found them disgusting, you
52:45
found them gross, right, and you didn't want to be
52:47
involved with them. Why would you then go to his
52:49
island with your family at that point? What was your
52:52
decision making process to go to his island at that
52:55
point in twenty twelve, so many years later, Lutnick, I
52:59
don't know, don't know. Question you don't know, Lutnick, I
53:04
don't I don't remember, and I don't know. Question, do
53:07
you recall the decision making process with your staff as
53:10
far as deciding to go to the island. Did they
53:12
say this is a good idea? What was the decision
53:16
making process? Like, do you remember Lutnik? I don't. As
53:19
I said earlier, the fact that they that his staff
53:22
knew I was going to be there and pursued us
53:25
is inexplicable and unsettling. But I don't remember Submaranium. Thank you.
53:32
All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here,
53:34
and in the next episode, we're going to pick up
53:35
where we left off. All the information that goes with
53:38
this episode can be found in the description box.