Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / The Epstein Witnesses Had Their Say. Now Compare It to the Evidence (Part 2) (10/1/26)

Transcript

The Epstein Witnesses Had Their Say. Now Compare It to the Evidence (Part 2) (10/1/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off, talking about what comes next now
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: that the congressional testimony has been wrapped up. The distinction
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: between being wrong and lying is crucial because criminal false
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: statement case requires considerably more than proving that a sentence
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: was inaccurate. Under U.S. Code 18 Section 1001, a person
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: can face criminal exposure if for knowingly and willfully making
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in a matter
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. Under the General
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: Perjury Statute, U.S. Code 18, Section 1621, sworn testimony can
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: create exposure when a person willfully states a material matter
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: that the person does not believe to be true. Materiality matters.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: Intent matters. The exact wording of the question matters. The
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: exact wording of the answer matters. Whether the witness misunderstood,
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: qualified the answer, corrected the answer, or genuinely failed to
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: remember also matters. Those requirements are not loopholes obstructing accountability.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: They're the legal standards that distinguish a criminal lie from
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: an ordinary human error. But acknowledging those standards should not
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: become an excuse for paralysis. Congress possesses lawyers, investigators, subpoena authority, documents, transcripts,
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: and a massive record assembled from years of of Epstein litigation.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: The committee does not need to announce that somebody committed
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: perjury before examining whether somebody committed perjury. It simply needs
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: to do the work, take each potentially significant contradiction and
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: reduce it to its component parts. Here's the question. Here's
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: the answer. Here's the contemporaneous record. Here are the documents
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: known to the witness at the time. Here is why
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: the issue mattered to the Congressional Investigation. then give the
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: witness the opportunity to explain the discrepancy before anyone starts
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: throwing criminal terminology around. That level of rigor is especially
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: necessary in the Epstein case because the public has already
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: endured decades of people discovering remarkably narrow memories whenever his
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: name entered the conversation. Social acquaintances became barely remembered acquaintances,
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: professional relationships became occasional contacts. Years of communication were reduced
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: to a handful of forgettable encounters, people who moved through
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: the same residences, offices, financial structures, social circles, and professional
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: networks somehow repeatedly presented themselves as occupying tiny isolated compartments
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: inside Epstein's life. Now, some of those accounts may be
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: perfectly accurate. Some may reflect the ordinary distortion produced by time.
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: Others may deserve much harder examination. What Congress cannot legitimately
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: do is collect all of those carefully minimized recollections and
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: never perform the second half of the exercise. And I
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: think that Darren Indyk's position illustrates why minimization cannot simply
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: be accepted without examination. He was Epstein's attorney and ultimately
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: one of the men entrusted with administering Epstein's estate. Richard
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: Kahn likewise occupied a position involving Epstein's finances and became
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: the other co-executor. The significance of those jobs does not
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: prove criminal knowledge, participation, or dishonesty. It does, however, make
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: detailed scrutiny of their claimed knowledge completely appropriate. Their professional
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: roles put them near precisely the legal entities, payments, accounts, contracts,
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: and corporate structures that investigators are now examining. The recent
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: federal investigation reported by the Wall Street Journal underscores that
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: those issues are not merely academic. If Congress possesses testimony
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: concerning those matters, handing prosecutors a carefully organized comparison between
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: testimony and documentary evidence would be far more useful than
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: another round of televised indignation. Now, there is also an
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: institutional lesson here that Congress should already understand. The power
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: to compel testimony means very little if there is no
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: consequence for treating the process casually. In September, the Oversight
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: Committee announced demonstrated that it was willing to confront outright
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: noncompliance when it advanced a contempt resolution against Leon Black
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: after he failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition, according
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: to the committee, to produce subpoenaed material. The full House
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: subsequently approved the contempt resolution by unanimous consent. That episode
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: showed Congress asserting that its compulsory process carries legal weight. Fine.
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: But compulsory process is not only about forcing somebody into
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: a chair. The integrity of the information obtained once that
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: person sits in the chair matters just as much. Otherwise,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: Congress creates a bizarre incentive structure. Refuse to appear, and
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: you may face contempt. Appear, answer questions, and the accuracy
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: of the answers may never receive serious follow-up. That can't
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: be the standard for an investigation advertised as an attempt
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: to understand decades of institutional failure surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Subpoena
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: enforcement is only one piece of the oversight. Verifications, another. Referral, another.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: Follow-up questioning, another. Documentary reconciliation, you guessed it, another. An
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: investigation that celebrates the first step, while quietly abandoning the
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: remaining four, is not thorough merely because the transcript stack
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: is tall. Now, the committee's own public description of its
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: Epstein investigation makes the unfinished work difficult to ignore. It
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: said that it's examining federal investigative failures, the circumstances surrounding
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: Epstein's death, sex trafficking operations, Epstein and Maxwell's efforts to
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: cultivate powerful people, and possible ethics violations involving public officials.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: Those are enormous subjects. They can't be resolved through autobiographical
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: storytelling by witnesses whose own conduct, relationships, employment, or professional
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: decisions may themselves be relevant. Testimony is evidence, not scripture.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: Every witness enters the room with his or her own experience, interests,
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: blind spots, loyalties, resentments, and reputational concerns, as well as
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: legal exposure. That does not automatically make the witness dishonest.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: It does mean investigators are supposed to verify what they hear.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: The whole point of possessing independent evidence is that Congress
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: does not have to depend on faith. And yet, the
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: Epstein story has been plagued by precisely that institutional credulity
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: for years. Again and again, entities with investigative power have
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: accepted boundaries that Epstein and the people around them were
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: only too happy to provide. The narrow Florida investigation produced
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: a narrow resolution. The non-prosecution agreement placed extraordinary limits around
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: federal accountability. Later investigations concentrated on Epstein and Maxwell, while
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: enormous questions remained about the financial and logistical machinery around them. Then,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Epstein died before trial. removing the central defendant from the equation.
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: Every one of those developments made the surviving documentary record
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: more important, not less. Congress finally assembled many of the
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: people connected to different portions of that history and put
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: questions to them. It would be bitterly fitting if Washington
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: now repeated the oldest Epstein mistake of all by stopping
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: just before the questions become genuinely uncomfortable. And in my opinion,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: what survivors deserve from the process was not another ceremonial
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: acknowledgement that terrible things happened to them. That fact has
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: been established beyond serious dispute for years. What remained unanswered
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: was how those crimes continued for so long. Who knew what?
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: Who did what? Who facilitated what? Which institutions failed? Which
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: explanations survived documentary scrutiny? And which collapsed, when exposed, to
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: the record? Survivor accounts are essential pieces of that evidentiary landscape.
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: So are the financial records, the emails, the calendars, previous
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: warrant statements, and the court filings. The committee's task should
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: be to place those bodies of evidence beside the congressional
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: testimony and identify where they agree and where they do not.
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: That doesn't require Congress to adopt every allegation ever made
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: in an Epstein-related civil case as established fact. It requires
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: exactly the opposite approach. Separate allegation from proof. Separate hearsay
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: from first-hand knowledge. Separate contemporaneous documentation from memories recorded decades later.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: Separate a contradiction from a provable lie. Separate conduct that
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: looks appalling from conduct that violates federal criminal law. This
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: is tedious work, which may explain why Washington so often
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: prefers the theater-surrounding investigation to the labor required to complete them.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: But Epstein survivors have already seen what happens when institutions
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: choose convenience over thoroughness. They shouldn't have to watch Congress
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: perform the same routine with better cameras. And that's why
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: the unanswered testimony should therefore be converted into a discrepancy matrix,
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: witness by witness and subject by subject. For Indyk, catalog
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: the testimony concerning Epstein's corporations, finances, legal arrangements, estate planning, employees, settlements,
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: cash practices, and knowledge of Epstein's conduct. For Kahn, do
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: the same with the accounting structures, payment companies, tax arrangements,
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: financial movements, and estate administration. For Groff, compare scheduling and
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: administrative testimony against calendars, communications, travel records, and previously produced documents.
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: For Rumler, build a chronology of meetings, introductions, communications, professional interactions,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: and relevant third-party records. For Kellen, place her testimony beside
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: earlier statements, litigation records, communication, and survivor accounts where those
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: subjects overlap. For Noelle, test recollections against Bureau of Prison Records,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: investigative reports, staffing documentation, disciplinary records, video evidence, and contemporaneous communications. Then,
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: publish the reconciled factual record wherever legally possible. That would
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: turn an amorphous scandal into a collection of answerable questions.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: And where an answer cannot be reconciled, call that witness back.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: There's nothing radical about that. Investigators routinely conduct follow-up interviews
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: when newly obtained evidence conflicts with an earlier account. The
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: witness may have a completely innocent explanation. A document may
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: lack context. Another person may have created the record. A
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: date may be wrong. A lawyer may point to qualifying
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: language elsewhere in the transcript that resolves the supposed contradiction.
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: But if the explanation does not resolve it, Congress should
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: keep going. Obtain the underlying documents, identify who created them,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: establish whether the witness received them, determine whether the subject
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: was material to the investigation, determine whether the witness had
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: a motive to conceal the truth, determine whether other evidence
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: independently corroborates one version or the other. That's the difference
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: between accusing somebody of lying because the answer feels slippery,
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: and building a legitimate false statements case. One is rhetoric.
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: The other is evidence. After everything that's happened in the
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: Epstein saga, evidence should finally get priority. And only after
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: doing that work does the criminal question become appropriate. Section
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: 1001 is not a magic incantation that converts every contradiction
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: into a felony. It requires a materially false statement made
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: knowingly and willfully in a matter within federal jurisdiction and
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: including the legislative branch. Perjury under Section 1621 likewise contains
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: demanding requirements concerning oath, willfulness, and the witness belief in
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: the truth of the statement. Those elements are why prosecutors,
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: not congressional press offices, should make the ultimate criminal charging decision.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: But prosecutors cannot evaluate evidence. Congress never organizes or refers.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: If the committee uncovers a strong case that one of
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: its witnesses knowingly gave materially false information, transmitting that evidence
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: to the Justice Department isn't political vengeance. It's the ordinary
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: consequence of taking congressional testimony seriously. And this is where
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: the record also creates expectations it should not be permitted
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: to evade. Comer has publicly declared in the Leon Black
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: dispute that subpoenas carry the force of law and that
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: powerful or connected people should not be able to disregard
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: congressional process. Apply that principle consistently. If congressional authority deserves
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: respect when somebody refuses to provide testimony, then congressional authority
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: deserves respect when testimony has already been provided. The witness
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: who ignores the subpoena can't be the only person exposed
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: to consequences. A witness who knowingly and materially falsifies information,
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: if the evidence establishes that, attacks the same investigative process
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: from the opposite direction. One refuses to provide the information,
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: the other corrupts the information, being provided. And considering that
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: Epstein's world was built around asymmetry in power, wealth purchased access,
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: access produced influence, influence created distance from ordinary consequences, lawyers negotiated,
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: bankers processed, employees arranged, friends introduced, institutions compartmentalized. When trouble arrived,
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: responsibility seemed to dissolve into the gaps between everybody's job description.
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: Congress was supposed to be the institution that capable of
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: cutting through those compartments and looking at the entire machine
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: at once. If it does not, the hearings and depositions
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: risk becoming just another venue for carefully constructed distance. And
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: I think that's the central problem with treating testimony as
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: an endpoint. A witness can describe a years-long relationship in
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: sterile language. A professional can characterize his responsibilities narrowly. An
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: employee can explain that somebody else handled the important decisions.
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: A social contact can insist the relationship was less substantial
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: than the correspondent suggests. And everybody can occupy his or
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: her own tiny compartment. And nobody has to confront what
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: the complete record looks like when all those compartments are
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: assembled together. Congress has the ability to assemble them. The
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: only remaining question is whether it has the appetite to
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: do so. And now with the Indyk and Kahn investigation
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: reported to be underway, it makes that question even harder
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: to avoid. Federal prosecutors reportedly are seeking documents and interviewing
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: potential witnesses concerning their dealings with Epstein. That means information
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: gathered by Congress could have immediate relevance beyond Capitol Hill.
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: The committee should preserve every exhibit, every communication produced, pursuant
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: to subpoena, every transcript, every video, every document referenced during questioning,
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: and every subsequent factual contradiction discovered by staff. It should
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: make appropriate referrals without attempting to dictate prosecutorial outcomes. It
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: should cooperate with lawful, federal requests for evidence. And it
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: should resist the temptation to turn an active investigative matter
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: into another partisan spectacle. Accountability is strongest when the evidence
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: can stand without the theatrics surrounding it. And I think
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: that the same standard should be applied regardless of who
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: the witness is, who knows them, which administration they served,
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: which bank employed them, which political party finds their testimony convenient,
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: or which media faction wants the story buried or amplified.
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: That's where credibility is either earned or destroyed. There can't
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: be one evidentiary standard for a Clinton associate, another for
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: a Trump official, another for an Epstein employee, and another
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: for a billionaire, and another for somebody who worked inside
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: the federal prison system. The questions are remarkably simple. What
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: did you tell Congress? What does the evidence show? Can
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: the two accounts be reconciled? If they cannot, why not?
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: After months of interviews, those questions should dominate the next phase.
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: Congress has already accumulated the raw material. Kahn and Nindyke
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: were deposed in March. Noel was interviewed in May. Kellen
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: followed in May, Groff in June, and Rumler in July.
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: The committee has therefore had months in some cases to
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: begin matching testimony against the mountain of material in its possession. Publicly, however,
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: there has been no comparable campaign announcing false statement referrals
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: concerning those witnesses, that does not establish that no review
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: is occurring behind the scenes. But the absence of a
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: visible reconciliation process leaves the public unable to determine whether
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: the testimony is actually being audited or merely archived. After
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: all the promises about transparency, that's a significant unresolved issue.
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: Now look, there is still an opportunity to salvage something
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: substantial from the investigation. And they can start by producing
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: a final evidentiary report that does more than summarize what
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: witnesses said. Identify conflicts in the record. Explain which conflicts
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: were resolved. Explain which remain unresolved. Describe which matters were
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: referred to law enforcement and on what evidentiary basis, without
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: declaring anybody guilty. Identify missing records and uncooperative witnesses. Document
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: where previous federal investigations failed to pursue obvious avenues. Most importantly,
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: stop pretending that obtaining testimony is synonymous with obtaining the truth.
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: The two things are not interchangeable. Testimony is somebody's account
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: of the truth. Investigation is the process of determining whether
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: that account survives contact with the evidence. The Epstein story
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: has suffered for decades because people with institutional authority repeatedly
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: stop short of that second step. Congress now possesses an
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: extraordinary documentary archive and a series of statements from people
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: positioned throughout Epstein's professional, financial, social, administrative, and custodial worlds.
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: It has enough material to start testing those accounts in
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: a serious way. If compelling evidence demonstrates that a witness knowingly, materially,
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: misled Congress, the matter should be documented and referred under
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: the laws that already exist. If the evidence vindicates the witness,
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: that conclusion should be documented too. And in my opinion,
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: that's the standard the survivors and the public should have
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: been able to expect from the beginning. Not insinuation, not
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: partisan cherry-picking, not carefully edited viral clips, not depositions treated
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: like season finales in Washington's endless political television show. Evidence, comparison, confrontation, resolution,
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: and where warranted, referral. Congress demanded answers from these people
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: because lawmakers said that Epstein's story was important enough to
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: justify using the coercive power of the United States House
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: of Representatives. Having invoked that power, Congress acquired an obligation
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: to finish the work that power made possible. The committee
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: has already shown that it can compel witnesses, issue subpoenas,
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: publish transcripts, make criminal referrals, and pursue contempt when somebody
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: defies its authority. Now comes the part that determines whether
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: any of it meant something. Put the testimony against the record,
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: follow every serious contradiction, wherever it leads, and let the
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: evidence decide who was telling Congress the truth. And if
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: Congress refuses to take that final step, then all the subpoenas, depositions,
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: press releases, and promises of accountability will amount to little
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: more than another elaborate exercise in Washington self-congratulation. The American
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: people did not need another stack of transcripts destined to
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: gather dust, and the survivors certainly did not need another
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: institution inviting the people around Epstein to explain themselves without
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: anyone seriously testing those explanations afterward. This was supposed to
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: be the moment when the old rules finally changed. when wealth, connections,
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: legal insulation, and carefully rehearsed denials stop being enough to
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: make uncomfortable questions disappear. If the record shows that witnesses
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: were truthful, then say so and show the work. If
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: the record shows material contradictions, confront them. If the evidence
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: establishes that someone knowingly lied to Congress, refer it and
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: let the law take its course. Anything less would confirm
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: the ugliest suspicion hanging over this entire process. that Congress
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: was willing to perform accountability right up until accountability required consequences.
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: The committee has spent months demanding answers from everyone else,
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: and now the question belongs to them. Did they actually
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: want the truth? Or did they just want the appearance
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: of pursuing it? Because the talking is finished, and the
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: record is sitting in front of them. And now, there's
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: nowhere left to hide. All the information that goes with
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.