Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Bill Barr And The Epstein Related Deposition Given To Congress (Part 10-12) (5/22/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bill Barr And The Epstein Related Deposition Given To Congress (Part 10-12) (5/22/26) · 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 that Bill Barr deposition that he gave to Congress.
0:10
Question and again, to the best of your recollection, you
0:14
never got an urgent report regarding Prince Andrew. Answer. I
0:18
don't recall. Quite possibly, but I don't recall that you know,
0:21
an urgent report could also be done. I mean it's
0:24
a judgment call. A US attorney can want to question
0:27
somebody as sensitive as a member of the royal family,
0:30
you know, our closest ally, and they might file an
0:34
urgent report saying I want to you know that we're
0:37
going to be pursuing this guy as a witness, and
0:40
it's going to make the papers question. So that's definitely
0:44
someone that there should have been an urgent report filed. Answer. Yeah,
0:49
question now whether it made it to your bar cuts
0:53
her off or him off? Well, no, I mean they
0:56
can say he is just a witness. But the fact,
0:59
I think one of the reasons when you go and
1:01
hold a press conference and you attack him in front
1:03
of the mansion and so forth, that is actually something
1:06
that the US attorney should have run by me not
1:09
that I would have opposed it, but I would like
1:12
to know about it. And again, red flags for everybody
1:15
out there. So you mean to tell me the Attorney
1:17
General wants to know if you want to speak to
1:19
a royal as a witness, But they have nothing to
1:22
do with the deal that Jeffrey Epstein received from the
1:25
Justice Department. Yeah, okay, sure, who is buying that answer?
1:34
I don't think he told me, but I wasn't mad
1:36
at him for the substance question. This is potentially a
1:39
poorly worded question, but so based off that your recollection,
1:44
is it possible that they just didn't inform you that
1:47
there were other prominent people under investigation or as witnesses? Answer?
1:54
I think it's possible that the SDNY did not inform me,
1:57
you know, how deep they were in the investigation of
2:00
particular individuals, that would not surprise me. By the same token,
2:04
I feel that my view of that office and the
2:06
people involved would be that if they had any evidence
2:10
establishing a crime, they would pursue it as such. And
2:14
I also feel, you know, it's sort of amazing after
2:17
all these years, you know, going back to the nineties,
2:19
when you had people reporting and the victims, and a
2:22
lot of speculation and people finding connections. I still have
2:25
not heard. No evidence has come out that would establish
2:29
criminality for most of those individuals. Question uh huh? Answer
2:33
that have been named, and I think it would come
2:36
out if there was any feeling that within the government
2:39
on either side that someone was covering it up, I
2:43
think it would get out. I mean SDNY and New
2:46
York is well known as being home of many many
2:49
a leak on investigation. So question, so, in your experience,
2:54
you have no doubt if SDNY prosecutors saw evidence of
2:57
a crime, they would have followed that evidence and if
3:00
it led to an indictment, they would have indicted. And
3:03
if it led to a conviction, they would have followed
3:05
the facts where they led. Is that fair answer? Yes?
3:09
For that group. I also feel you know they would
3:12
have done the same for Clinton. I believe remember this
3:15
stuff also went on under President Biden's administration, and they
3:19
were looking for something to bring against President Trump, and
3:22
this was if they had any evidence, this would have
3:25
been low hanging fruit. I was never informed of the evidence,
3:29
and I'm skeptical that there is any. Do you recall
3:32
when I'm more the SDN wise more formal investigation, and
3:35
Depstein began. Answer no, I mean I may have at
3:39
the time, I just don't remember. Question likely prior to
3:43
you becoming attorney general. Answer not necessarily, but quite possibly.
3:48
Question Okay, do you recall generally when you became aware
3:51
of the ongoing investigation. Answer no, I don't. I obviously
3:55
became aware of it around the time of his arrest.
3:58
It could have been shortly before. I mean, usually we
4:02
would be told of an arrest like that going down
4:04
in Teterborough. Question a more high profile arrest the moment
4:08
someone lands in an airport. Answer yes, question in cases
4:14
like this one will stick with the high profile cases.
4:17
Do any of the kind of investigatory decisions rise to
4:21
the Attorney General's office, whether or not to issue a
4:23
search warrant, or apply for a search warrant, or apply
4:26
for a subpoena? Would any of that have arisen from
4:30
your office? Answer? I wouldn't say it would be very
4:34
unusual for it, but there could be unusual circumstances, like
4:38
you're going to search a very sensitive area. You know
4:40
that's going to cause all kinds of hubbub. Question I
4:44
believe it was a member of Congress a couple of
4:46
years ago suggested that you personally approve the search warrant
4:50
for Epstein's house in New York, his townhouse in New York.
4:54
Do you recall answer? Did someone say that question? I
4:57
believe so. Answer, I don't recall that question, But that
5:03
and the questions cut off by Bar That's not the
5:05
kind of thing I would have thought was particularly needed.
5:09
You know, you needed my approval for question kind of
5:13
just run of the mill search warrant answer of somebody
5:16
who's already been arrested. Question yeah, oh callahan run of
5:20
the mill? Is your term redacted? Yeah? Like not outside
5:24
the ordinary practice of an investigation, I believe would be
5:28
cut off by Bar. I would have considered the normal question. Okay,
5:34
during the course of the investigation, did you receive any
5:37
regular briefings from the FBI or the SDNY? Answer during what?
5:43
Question during the course of their investigation? Answer into question
5:48
mister Epstein answer death or question no? Answer, Oh, you're
5:53
talking about before you committed suicide? Question yes, sir, answer,
5:58
I don't recall any question. Would there normally be those
6:02
kinds of briefings or updates fall to the head of
6:05
the criminal division, or would it be even lower than that.
6:09
Answer the investigation itself. I think I'm not even sure
6:13
it would get to main Justice other than alerting us
6:16
maybe that the investigation was going on, but particular actions
6:20
wouldn't be regularly reported. Question. I don't want to get
6:24
it wrong, but I believe you said that there were
6:26
in regards to the non prosecution agreement out of the
6:29
Southern District of Florida, that there were conversations about being
6:33
careful that the twenty nineteen investigation did not run a
6:37
foul of that. Did I summarize that correctly? Answer? I
6:41
vaguely recall some discussion I don't know exactly when it
6:45
occurred about, you know, to the extent, what charges can
6:48
be brought that don't run a foul of that plea agreement.
6:51
I remember some discussion. Question do you recall any more
6:55
of the content of the discussion? Answer no. Question concerns
7:00
that the plea agreement restricted the Southern District of New York.
7:03
Answer no. I just think it was a question of
7:06
everyone agreeing on what we had a good legal argument.
7:10
Question and then answer we being the whole Department of Justice. Question.
7:16
And then you were asked about the kind of specific
7:18
on the seizure list that the DOJ released earlier this
7:21
year from the FBI that had like picked up a laptop,
7:25
but didn't say what was on the laptop. Did you
7:28
recall ever reviewing any of the FBI's evidence in the
7:31
Epstein criminal investigation answer before a suicide question, Yes, sir,
7:37
answer no question. Do you recall reviewing any of the
7:41
evidence after his suicide? Answer? Just evidence relating to his
7:46
you know, relating to his suicide. I don't recall reviewing
7:49
evidence relating to charging Maxwell or anybody else. Question, So
7:53
no answer. I mean I was told in Maxwell's case,
7:57
when they got to the point that they were ready
7:59
to indict. I believe I was told the substance, but
8:02
I didn't review the evidence myself. Question applying to both
8:06
mister Epstein and miss Maxwell. You reviewed for mister Epstein,
8:10
you reviewed evidence surrounding his death. Answer uh huh question,
8:16
but not substantative criminal evidence regarding his investigation and prosecution.
8:20
Is that correct? Answer? Right question? And then with miss Maxwell,
8:25
you didn't review the underlying criminal evidence. You just got
8:28
notified about appending indictment. Answer right question. Okay, answer, that's
8:34
my best recollection question. I just wanted to make sure
8:38
it was all in line. There. We've been back and
8:40
forth a little bit. And on that note, I want
8:43
to shift to the non prosecution agreement a little bit
8:46
as in relation to both, kind of like the minority said,
8:49
your experience generally with non prosecution agreements, but then a
8:54
few questions about whether or not they had any impact.
8:57
During your second tenure as the Attorney General. You were
9:01
asked if you were aware of it at the time.
9:03
I believe you said you were not aware of it
9:06
in two thousand and seven. Answer. I became aware of
9:10
it when it was public, you know, in public coverage
9:12
of the matter. Question Uh huh. Did you ever review
9:15
the agreement as attorney general in those discussions about its
9:19
potential impacts? Answer? I don't recall going back and looking
9:23
at it myself. I think other people were doing that.
9:26
I mean everyone, I think understood that there would be
9:29
litigation over whether or not the indictment could stand and
9:32
whether it was preempted by the settlement. Everyone understood that,
9:36
and I think they were Everyone was satisfying themselves that
9:40
we were in a strong legal position. Question, of course,
9:44
mister Epstein never got a chance to appeal, never got
9:47
convicted and never got the chance to appeal the conviction.
9:50
But miss Maxwell is appealing based on the non prosecution agreement.
9:55
Is that your understanding answer? That's my understanding question. You
10:00
were asked a little bit about this, specifically the co
10:02
conspirator language in that agreement. You said something along the
10:06
lines of the United States not prosecuting any and all
10:09
co conspirators, including but not limited to, and then listed
10:13
for people affiliated with Epstein. And I want to ask
10:16
you again, had you seen in your experience that breath
10:20
of language in these kinds of agreements before answer? You know,
10:25
I don't recall seeing that, you know. I think as
10:28
a general matter, in a you know, unspectacular case, I
10:31
think it may not be inappropriate to when you're trying
10:34
to get a deal done with the primary suspect to
10:37
agree that you won't go after peripheral people as a
10:40
way of continuing the case, like I'm going to also
10:43
go after your I won't go after your wife for
10:46
you know, her role in this question. Uh huh answer,
10:50
Or I won't go after your children for their role
10:53
in this and so forth. That kind of stuff is done, okay,
10:56
But this case is different because of the nature of
10:58
the crime and because of the span of the victims
11:02
question and kind of the breadth of what those potential
11:06
co conspirators could be. Answer yes, question in general, then
11:11
I'll ask about high profile Answer and you know, arguably
11:15
not enough was known to make that kind of broad agreement.
11:19
Question in general, do non prosecution agreements need to be
11:22
approved by someone in Justice Headquarters? Answer? Actually, off the
11:27
top of my head, I don't know. Question what about
11:30
in bar cuts them off? I think there are certain
11:34
kinds of cases, definitely, But I'm not sure about this question.
11:38
And would it be more likely in higher profile cases?
11:42
Answer no, I mean certain kinds of cases where the
11:45
substantive law is in play and the money laundering section
11:48
may have to sign off on some things, or the
11:50
fraud section may have to sign off on some things.
11:54
Question So it's to the best of your recollection, more
11:57
akin to what's the alleged crime is versus the profile
12:01
of the person being charged? Answer right, All right, folks,
12:05
We're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
12:07
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
12:10
we left off. All of the information that goes with
12:13
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
12:17
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
12:20
this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
12:23
the Bill Barr transcript. Question. Okay, since it's been in
12:27
the news, in your experience our non prosecution agreements binding
12:32
within all districts of the United States, you said you
12:35
felt like you had a good legal standing to bring
12:37
the twenty nineteen case against Epstein and then the twenty
12:40
twenty case against Maxwell. But the current argument in the
12:43
Southern District of Florida that can bind the Southern District
12:47
of New York. Is there any Department of Justice manual
12:50
that talks about that? Answer? Not that I'm aware of.
12:54
I can't recall how that issue is handled. Question on
12:58
this specific agreement between the Southern District to Florida and
13:00
mister Epstein, I believe it was sealed as part of
13:03
the case. Is that common bar? I know what happens? Question?
13:07
And you had said before that one of your problems
13:09
with the one of the issues to you with this
13:12
particular agreement was that it restricted the ability of victims
13:15
to speak about the case or speak about the agreement.
13:19
I believe the CVRA requires victims to be able to speak.
13:23
Answer yes, question potential plea agreements. Is that the case, Barr?
13:28
I believe so. I think it's a statutory requirement. Question.
13:32
Did you come to that view after reviewing the agreement
13:36
in twenty nineteen or just based off a news coverage answer?
13:40
Just based off a news coverage question. Again, this is
13:44
kind of just using it as an example of what's common.
13:47
He agreed to plead guilty to a couple of charges
13:49
and eventually served thirteen months in Palm Beach County jail
13:53
and left for sixteen hours a day to go to work.
13:56
Is that common in those kinds of agreements? The broad
13:58
work release, mister O'Callahan you're asking about, that's the state
14:03
execution of the plea agreement in the state right redacted. Yes,
14:08
it was still signed off on by gets cut off
14:10
by O'Callahan. And he's never he's never been. The non
14:14
prosecution agreement is with the subject of Florida US Attorney's office.
14:19
The way that the state sentence is executed, that's a
14:21
local Florida Palm Beach matter. And I don't think mister Barr,
14:25
you know, has any information about that. Barr, that's true. Question. So,
14:30
the post sentencing. How an inmate is or work released
14:34
foreign inmate is done by the local folks. The US
14:37
Attorney's office wouldn't be involved. Answer not usually, I would suspect,
14:41
but I don't know. Question Okay, again, I want to
14:46
get it right. So you said that in your personal view,
14:49
you thought that it was wrong to not let victims
14:51
have a say, and also that there was legal vulnerability. Again,
14:55
the vulnerability is the potential? Is that the potential on
15:00
future cases? Is that fair? Answer? The reason you let
15:03
them have their say? Question? No, you said that you
15:07
had two kind of personal concerns with the non prosecution
15:10
agreement of mister Epstein, that it was wrong to not
15:13
let the victims have their say, both I imagine personally
15:17
and under the CVRA, but also under the legal vulnerability.
15:20
And I'm just wondering. Answer by bar Well, No, it's
15:24
the same thing. Question the same the CVRA. Answer I
15:28
thought at the time that made it legally vulnerable. Question
15:31
all right? Answer these were you know, I was not
15:35
an advocate. You know here I generally am concerned about
15:38
victims' rights. I looked at this, I didn't like the
15:41
aspect of it, and I thought it was a legal vulnerability.
15:44
But I wasn't sitting in judgment of the decision. I
15:47
didn't know all the facts. Question. I'm not asking for
15:50
judgment of overall decision. Just if, like on your first
15:54
blush read of this, it had multiple bar That's what
15:58
I was concerned about. Question all right, Barr or you know,
16:03
felt I wouldn't have done question I think it got
16:06
a little jumbled in the last hour of possible recusals.
16:09
You did not recuse from the SDNY investigation. Is that correct? Answer?
16:14
I did not recuse from the sd I think I
16:17
was considered whether I should. There was a question asked
16:21
me during my confirmation. I'm not sure what that was
16:24
relating to, but something about Epstein. Question I thought it
16:28
was relating to if you investigated the non prosecution agreement? Answer? Ah,
16:33
question and I believe there were issues with Kirkland and
16:36
Ellis representing mister Epstein in that case your former employment answer. Yeah,
16:42
So I wasn't sure about the timing of things and
16:44
whether it implicated the time that I was there or
16:47
you know, anything like that, And I don't think it did.
16:50
I actually don't think I would have recused myself from that,
16:53
but I just was never involved in that. I mean,
16:56
the thing that happened under my tenure relating to Epstein
16:59
was the investigationation of Epstein in the Southern District, and
17:02
I did not recuse myself from that. Question Courtney Wilde,
17:06
one of Epstein's victims, said that she sent a letter
17:09
to you during your tenure as Attorney General. Do you
17:13
recall receiving that letter? Answer? No. Question and then I
17:16
believe you said that you were made aware of the
17:18
OPR investigation into mister Acosta while he was US attorney
17:23
for the Southern District of Florida, kind of like at
17:25
the end of the OPR investigation that you were aware
17:29
of their findings but not the investigation itself. Answer no,
17:33
I may have been aware that they were investigating. I
17:35
was just not aware of where they stood. I didn't
17:38
monitor the investigation. Question okay, answer they finished when they
17:43
finish and I found out what they were thinking. Question No,
17:47
that's helpful. I wanted to clarify that. Do you know,
17:50
just to the best of your knowledge, how does how
17:52
can the Attorney General direct OPR to conduct investigations or
17:57
do they do it? No, the AG can direct them.
18:00
That's how they were originally established. Question did you direct
18:04
OPR to investigate the non prosecution agreement? Answer? No, question
18:09
do you know who did? Answer no, But they don't
18:12
have to be directed. They can also initiate their own
18:15
question Uh huh. Answer, So no one had to direct it.
18:18
If they sought newspapers and you know we're concerned about it,
18:22
they can initiate it. It doesn't require being directed. I'm
18:26
just saying the ag can direct it. Question again, this
18:30
is more just of your experience type. Questioned. The agreement
18:33
was signed in late two thousand and seven and then
18:35
executed in two thousand and eight, and then the OPR
18:38
investigation came in twenty twenty. Is it common for kind
18:42
of an internal review of US attorneys to happen so
18:45
far after the fact of the alleged answer by OPR standards,
18:49
that's speedy question, okay, And it could be she's cut
18:54
off or he's cut off by bar answer in those days.
18:57
Question in those days, it could have been a result
19:01
of the agreement being sealed and then press reports. Answer
19:04
could have answer could have been the answer is that
19:08
these things investigations by OPR as OIG take a long time.
19:12
Question all right? In addition to being informed of the
19:15
outcomes of the OPR investigation, did you review any of
19:18
the underlying materials? Answer concerning what question the OPR investigation
19:24
into the non prosecution agreement of mister Epstein. Answer, I
19:27
don't recall looking at it. I may have seen a
19:30
summary of their reasoning or something like that, but I
19:32
just don't recall. Question to you to that she's cut
19:37
off again by Barr. Answer delving into it, he was
19:40
no longer there. Question The OPR said that they conducted
19:43
a number of witness interviews during the investigation. To your knowledge,
19:47
does OPR keep records of witness interviews? Would they have
19:50
been transcribed? Answer? I don't know. Question shifting to Miss Maxwell.
19:55
She was arrested during your tenure, but as it pointed out,
19:58
did not go to trial until after you had left
20:00
the department. And you've talked about being made aware of
20:03
repending indictment. Was that when you were first made aware
20:07
of potential investigation into Miss Maxwell? Answer no, I mean well,
20:11
I would say that I assumed that they were looking
20:14
I don't know if I was told to, but I
20:16
think anyone would have assumed that they were looking at
20:18
Maxwell as a facilitator and a co conspirator, so I
20:21
assume that question. Do you know if there was a
20:25
more formal investigation into her that occurred after mister Epstein's
20:28
death or was it running concurrently with Epstein's death? Answer?
20:33
I don't know exactly how they were staging things, but
20:36
my assumption was that they were focusing on building their
20:39
case against Epstein and also trying to develop evidence that
20:42
would support a charge against her. And I think they
20:44
were probably doing them in tandem. But you know how
20:47
much they were pushing one over the other. I don't know. Question.
20:51
Then we talked about the urgent request of high value
20:54
co conspirators. Were you aware of any potential co conspirators
20:58
in the Epstein or Maxwell case that have not been prosecuted? Answer?
21:03
That have not been prosecuted. I mean, now we're switching
21:06
to the term co conspirator. I think I laid out
21:08
that I was not aware that SDNY had concluded that
21:12
or had established that they had any of the names
21:14
that had been bandied about were in fact engaged in
21:17
a legal activity that they could charge. Question. Okay, that's helpful. Answer.
21:22
When I say bandied about, I'm talking about you know,
21:24
the names that have come up here, like Dershowitz and
21:26
Branson and Richardson and people like that. Question the names
21:30
on the flight logs? Answer well, being on the flight
21:33
logs is not even I mean, it's not even prima
21:35
fossee evidence of wrongdoing. It's just you know, the person. Question.
21:40
But you don't recall ever being told that those names
21:42
that were being that were on the flight log or
21:44
fluttered about in the press, ever rose that this is
21:47
someone that we could potentially indict. Answer that's right. Question
21:52
Were you kept up to date on the Maxwell investigation?
21:55
I don't need to reread the quote, but were you
21:57
taking a similar posture of let the investment togator is
22:00
run the course of the investigation. Answer to which investigation question?
22:05
Miss Maxwell? Answer? Same course question? Do you recall any
22:09
conversations regarding the non prosecution agreement impacting the potential of
22:13
a charge for Miss Maxwell? Answer? I remember a discussion
22:18
about an impacting the work of the SDNY, but I
22:21
can't pin down, you know how much it related to
22:23
Epstein versus Maxwell. Question and then a few blanket questions
22:28
before some more general investigative type questions. Did anyone ever
22:33
instruct you to not investigate or prosecute Jeffrey Epstein. Answer
22:37
no question. Did anyone instruct you not to investigate or
22:40
prosecute Miss Maxwell? Answer no question. Did anyone instruct you
22:45
not to investigate or prosecute any other potential co conspirator?
22:49
Answer no question. And I believe you said earlier, but
22:54
you're confident that if the Southern District of New York
22:57
identified co conspirators that they believe they could con they
23:00
would have brought the case. Answer. I believe so. Question.
23:05
We've talked as as you have mentioned the kind of
23:07
broad nature of whatever the Epstein cut off by bar
23:11
and also just as a practical matter, you know, I
23:14
was aware of a lot of leagues of the Southern
23:16
District of New York, not just the Attorney General's office,
23:19
but also the FBI there, and it was in my view,
23:22
and this I think would be on both sides of
23:24
the issue. If they felt that there was a political
23:26
effort to block what they felt was a righteous case,
23:29
it would leak out. There's no doubt in my mind
23:32
it would leak out, and we would have heard about
23:34
it long ago. Question. I appreciate that. All right, folks,
23:38
we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next
23:40
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
23:42
we left off. All of the information that goes with
23:45
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
23:49
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
23:53
this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
23:55
the Bill Barr deposition that he gave to Congress. Question.
24:01
I appreciate that. I want to talk about again the
24:04
colloquial Epstein files and what that means. Obviously, it's kind
24:08
of taken a life of its own of what that
24:11
could possibly mean. Along with the client list. I think
24:14
your description of the client list is how I will
24:17
if I say client list, is how I will use
24:19
client list, whether or not there is a list of
24:22
people that Epstein facilitated prostitution or underage prostitution to individuals.
24:27
As an overarching question, what kinds of documents make up
24:31
a criminal investigative file? Answer whatever documents or potential evidence
24:36
in the case question So, witness interviews answer yes. Question
24:40
evidence gathered during a search warrant answer Records of activities,
24:45
whether it be comings and goings on planes or whether
24:48
someone was in the same place as an allegation. So
24:52
for example, on you know, Prince Andrew, they spent at
24:55
least I think I've seen reports that say, this was
24:58
not reported to me by the Southern District, that Virginia's
25:01
allegations of you know, something happened in London, something happened
25:04
here corresponded to where people were. So those kinds of
25:08
things are the kinds of records, hotel records, things like that,
25:12
and witness interviews and things like that. Question and you
25:16
mentioned a little bit earlier about protecting grand jury secrecy
25:20
and federal Rule six e. Would everything that's in a
25:23
case file be presented to a grand jury? Answer no question?
25:28
And then would it be common And I think this
25:30
is what has come out of the Department's efforts to
25:33
unseal some grand jury transcripts in the case that the
25:36
kind of underlying investigative review, you know, between the FBI
25:40
agents and the witness, for purposes of the grand jury,
25:43
the FBI agent would testify as to what the witness said.
25:47
Is that common answer yes, question in your experience with
25:51
the underlying interview transcript be prevented from disclosure or just
25:56
what was presented to the grand jury answer the transcript
26:00
the testimony would be protected question the underlying testimony? Answer,
26:05
what do you mean underlying testimony? Question? So the FBI
26:09
interview is a witness. The FBI agent then testifies to
26:12
the grand jury. Answer the material presented to the grand
26:16
jury would be protected. Question, but not necessarily cut off
26:20
by bar. It's not the medium that it's not limited
26:24
to the medium question. Okay, answer, that's my understanding. Question
26:31
do you know if those underlying interviews are recorded or
26:34
just transcribed? Answer? I don't know. Question Could a case
26:38
file also include FBI three zero two s answer yes,
26:43
question and ten twenty threes answer. Any document that reflects
26:47
evidence that is potentially relevant could be in the case file.
26:51
So the word case file is a little ambiguous. Question Yes,
26:55
as in Epstein files as a whole answer right, question,
26:59
We've talked a lot and you saw it. The list
27:01
of what the FBI seized in the case is seized
27:04
evidence kept after a case concludes. So mister Epstein died
27:09
his case concluded, would seize evidence still exist? Answer? I'm
27:13
not sure of the answer of that. I think people
27:16
who claim to have an interest in the property have
27:18
to sort to seek it back, and the government has
27:21
to make its case as to why it has to
27:23
be kept. That's my understanding of the process. But I'm
27:26
not sure. Question a separate, ongoing criminal case would possibly
27:31
be a good reason to keep the evidence. Answer yeah,
27:34
including whether there are appeals pending. Question Yeah, and obviously
27:38
some of the real property at least is gone, like
27:41
I think the island was purchased by someone else. Answer,
27:45
I don't know. Question the subpoena process for the US
27:48
attorneys and this is my own lack of knowledge, so
27:51
excuse me. But does the US attorney issue the subpoena
27:55
or does the grand jury issue the subpoena? Answer? Well,
27:58
the grand jury does, but in practice, the prosecutor determines,
28:02
you know, basically determines what is going to be produced
28:05
on behalf of the grand jury. Question and so the
28:08
grand jury would say, would recommend the subpoena for a
28:12
testimony to X and then to US attorney would draft?
28:16
Answer No, I think the US attorney would say, we're
28:19
going to interview this person. Question all right, answer and
28:22
bring that person before the grand jury. Question and those
28:26
subpoenas can be for documents and testimony. Answer yes, question
28:31
why issue a document subpoena versus execute a search warrant. Answer,
28:35
because you know many subpoenas are third party subpoenas, like
28:39
for bank records and so forth. And don't go into
28:42
a bank and search them. You impose the obligation on
28:45
the bank to produce them, and they will question and
28:48
those can be cut off by bar And even for
28:51
a subject you know, you would still frequently give that
28:54
person the chance to comply. You don't go searching unless
28:57
there's some reason you're concerned about the destruction of evidence.
29:02
Question And those can be executed against more than just
29:05
the subject of the investigation. Right, answer anybody? Question you
29:09
mentioned banks? Answer anybody that you know you believe could
29:13
have relevant evidence. Question so other witnesses or companies, businesses,
29:18
telecom providers answer sure, question all yes, answer all yes.
29:24
Question What about company data repositories? Google? Microsoft? Answer yes.
29:30
Question you mentioned banks and financial institutions. What about state
29:35
governments like camera footage off of the state courthouse or
29:38
anything like that? Could they do that as well? Answer
29:42
government stuff question? Yeah? Answer yes. Question So in the
29:46
Epstein case and without I think you said that you
29:50
didn't review the quote unquote Epstein files in their fulsomeness,
29:54
But it would be likely that the case would include
29:56
information like I just laid out three ZHO two's ten
30:00
twenty three's, returns from subpoenas, returns from search warrants, other
30:04
witness interviews, all of that would be included potentially in
30:07
a case file. Is that fairer answer? Potentially? Yes? Question,
30:11
And this could potentially include information that for whatever reason,
30:15
should not be released, victims personal identity and child sexual
30:19
abuse material being two prominent examples in this one answer,
30:23
Those are examples, but there are multiple reasons why you
30:26
wouldn't want to release the law files. Question. What are
30:29
some others? Answer? Because it's sometimes unfair to the individual
30:33
who the government does not has not included based on
30:35
the evidence that they've done anything wrong. Question, So, like
30:40
a hypothetical would be FBI conducts a witness interview, produces
30:44
a three to zero two, the interview names four people.
30:47
After further investigation, it's determined that those four people that
30:51
the interview is not credible, and those four people likely
30:54
didn't commit any crimes. Is that fair? Answer? So, I mean,
30:58
you could take the examples from this case. You know,
31:00
some of the victims made public allegations anyway that were fabrications.
31:05
Question Uh huh. Answer. I'm not saying this is true
31:08
of all the victims, but there are some that then withdrew.
31:12
So it's possible that there's material in there that the
31:15
government has come to the conclusion is not credible or
31:18
is you know, conclusively refuted by other evidence. Question Uh
31:23
huh answer. You know, in the case of Bill Clinton,
31:26
as far as I was aware, there was no evidence
31:28
that he visited the island. You know, the government did
31:30
not obtain any such evidence because you didn't look stupid.
31:35
Ask mister Scully, Ask the people that worked on the island,
31:38
Ask some of the other girls who traveled to the island.
31:43
Question uh huh answer, And he denied it. But there
31:45
is somebody who asserts he did. I'm just using that
31:48
as an example. Question Uh huh answer. And it's fair
31:52
to put that. If the government has come to the
31:54
conclusion that he didn't visit the island, and the police
31:57
has evidence to show that, why would you put that
31:59
rowstu out there to permit all the you know, the
32:01
internet to get heated up about this and assault the
32:04
person for what you know is not accurate. Question? And
32:08
then you said earlier, and I want to ask you
32:09
again using the language the descriptor of the client list,
32:13
and we all kind of agreed on. You know, you
32:15
never saw a document or anything resembling a client list. Answer,
32:19
I have never seen a document resembling a client list.
32:22
Question what about any evidence or anything suggesting mister Epstein
32:27
was bribing individuals with salacious material? Answer you mean bribing them,
32:32
giving them something? Question extorting them? Answer? No, I don't
32:36
recall ever seeing such evidence. And it seems highly improbable
32:39
to me that you would extort somebody by engaging in
32:42
an act yourself. That's a crime. You don't get much
32:45
leverage if you go to jail too. Yeah. Well, what's
32:48
Fergie talking about? Then? Dinner? Her lawyer just say that
32:51
Epstein threatened to ruin the family of York. Well, what
32:55
do you think he was talking about? Think he was
32:57
just making idle threats or do you think that he
32:59
hadot Look, this whole entire thing stinks, and Barr has
33:04
been part of the cover up from the very beginning.
33:06
And furthermore, he lied directly to Congress here when he
33:09
said he never met with anybody that was in the
33:12
shoe with Epstein, he met with Stone Rays, didn't he
33:14
He had a personal meeting with Stone Rays, who then
33:17
died a few, you know, months later or whatever. But
33:20
he straight up said in this deposition, in these documents
33:23
that he never met with anybody. Question Yeah, same kind
33:28
of same question with the Maxwell case, all of the
33:31
potential evidence and documents that we just discussed about potentially
33:34
being a case file. Is it possible all that exists
33:37
for miss Maxwell as well? Answer the same kind of
33:41
stuff question? Uh huh? Answer possibly? Question did you ever
33:45
review any of the substantive evidence in her case? Answer?
33:49
I think I said no. Question okay. And then you
33:52
discussed in a little bit in relation to communication between
33:55
DJ and the White House regarding cases, that it would
33:58
be rare, but you I had two conversations with President
34:01
Trump regarding the Epstein case. Answer I recall two conversations
34:06
with Trump relating to the Epstein case. Question. Is it
34:10
common to have communications regarding cases within the Department of Justice?
34:14
Answer within the department? Question? Uh huh? Answer for who
34:19
to have to talk to whom? Question? Well, I mean
34:21
for SDNY to notify you, would they pick up the
34:24
phone or was it an email? Or was it a memo.
34:27
How would that If SDNY needed to get in contact
34:30
with you, how would they do it? Answer? Well, it's
34:33
rare for SDN why to want to get in contact
34:35
with main Justice. But if they wanted to, it could
34:38
be anything from a communication to a division, to the
34:41
deputy's office, or to the AG which was is pretty
34:45
rare question. Okay, and then I'm going to phrase these two. Answer.
34:50
But you know, look, every case is different. So for example,
34:54
on the Maduro indictments, I was very involved in those
34:57
because we were trying to coordinate an indictment. I mean
34:59
a case in Florida, a case in the Southern District,
35:02
and national security interests and so forth. Question uh huh.
35:06
Answer something like that, you would have more interaction with
35:09
the office, but on something like this you won't generally
35:12
have that much interaction. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap
35:15
up right here, and in the next episode dealing with
35:17
the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
35:20
All of the information that goes with this episode can
35:23
be found in the description box.