Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Bill Barr And The Epstein Related Deposition Given To Congress (Part 7-9) (5/20/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bill Barr And The Epstein Related Deposition Given To Congress (Part 7-9) (5/20/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:02
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking right back up
0:06
where we left off with the Bill Barr deposition transcript.
0:11
Question and do you know how long the FBI's investigation continued? Answer?
0:15
I think it continued throughout my tenure. Question. I'd like
0:19
to shift the focus on the evidence that the FBI
0:21
obtained during the course of the investigation, and I'm going
0:25
to that she's cut off by Bar. I think it
0:28
was an investigation directed by the Southern District, so it
0:31
involved their prosecutorial team. It wasn't the FBI in the
0:34
initial stages of the investigation, but they were essentially cut off. Yes,
0:41
answered by Bar again, working with the prosecutors. Question understood.
0:46
I'm going to ask the court reporter to mark Exhibit
0:48
A as an ABC News article titled what the Government Evidence
0:52
List tells us about the unreleased Epstein Files, dated July seventeenth,
0:56
twenty twenty five, as Exhibit B, a three page cap
1:00
a log of evidence that was reportedly prepared by the FBI. Barr.
1:04
Should I read the whole thing or redacted? No, I
1:08
can point to you. You're certainly welcome to I can
1:10
also point you to the portions that I plan to
1:13
ask you about Barr. Well, why don't we try that? Redacted? Sure? Question.
1:20
So the article describes Attorney General Bondie making available, quote
1:23
unquote the first phase of the classified Epstein files. Mister
1:28
Barr were you previously aware of Miss Bondi making these
1:31
materials public? Answer? Just what I read in the press.
1:34
Question do you have any understanding as to why Attorney
1:38
General Bondi did so? Answer I've never discussed the matter
1:42
with or I don't know. Question And do you have
1:44
an understanding of what the Epstein files contained? As the
1:47
phrase is used in this piece? Okallahan, the lawyer for
1:52
barr answers, as you mean in the ABC piece witness
1:57
where it was used redacted. I'm looking at the first
2:01
sentence of the article that refers to Attorney General Bondi
2:05
releasing the first phase of the the classified Epstein files.
2:09
It's the very first sentence of the article. Answer, yeah,
2:12
I see that. Yeah. Question do you have an understanding
2:15
as to what those files are comprised of? Answer? No question.
2:19
And then Exhibit B is a catalog, which, according to
2:22
the ABC piece, is the only document in the first
2:25
phase of the declassified files that hadn't previously been made public.
2:30
Answer by Barr, this is what you've given to me. Question,
2:35
So it's what the ABC piece describes as the only
2:38
documents in the first phase of the declassified materials that
2:42
Attorney General paum Bondi released that have not previously been
2:45
made public. Answer, okay. Question, and my question is have
2:50
you seen this catalog before? Answer? I don't recall seeing
2:54
it before. Question Are you familiar with any of the
2:57
items that it describes? Answer you want me to go
3:00
through each item. I'm not generally I'll just say this,
3:03
I'm not generally familiar or even specifically familiar with the
3:07
evidence amassed by the Southern District to prosecute ether Epstein
3:10
before he committed suicide, obviously, and then what they may
3:14
have collected that affected other potential defendants. In other words,
3:18
I wasn't monitoring the case that closely to know what
3:21
the evidence was. Question you mentioned that, Bar. I think
3:26
while I was there they reached the conclusion that they
3:28
had a case against Maxwell, and I don't have specific
3:31
recollections of it, but I'm sure I was briefed on
3:33
what the charges were and what the evidence supported. It question. Okay, answer,
3:39
but I have no way of liking or linking any
3:41
of this. This is gibberish to me because I have
3:44
no way of linking the content to the case. Question. Okay,
3:48
Okallahan redacted? Are you sure Exhibit B is what the
3:51
article refers to, because the article refers to a three
3:54
page index, and this is much longer than three pages redacted? Yep,
3:59
so ed. That is an enhanced version of the catalog,
4:02
which if you printed out from the publicly available source,
4:05
contains typeface that is far smaller. So we blew it
4:08
up so that your client would be able to read
4:10
it at the witness table. Mister Callahan, okay, the witness
4:14
bar Okay, thank you, mister o Callahan, Me too, bar.
4:19
I wouldn't know this stuff. I mean, I may have
4:21
been aware of some of it, but it has to
4:24
be better identified for me, you know. But as I say,
4:27
generally speaking, the way I understood what was going on
4:29
in the Southern District, other than looking at the issue
4:32
of suicide, which I carefully monitored, was doing what a
4:36
US attorney office normally does. And my understanding is that
4:39
at that point after the suicide, they were looking to
4:42
make to see if there was evidence to charge someone
4:45
for participating in the trafficking, and I didn't monitor their investigation,
4:50
as I wouldn't generally monitor an investigation unless there was
4:53
a particular reason to do so. Redacted. Question you mentioned earlier,
4:59
as I understood that your knowledge the FBI's investigation continued
5:03
throughout your tenure as Attorney General. Answer yes, question to
5:08
your understanding, did it continue after you left? EJ Answer,
5:12
I don't recall. I think I don't recall. Well. My
5:16
impression is that this was a very motivated group of prosecutors,
5:20
and this was a high priority for the office and
5:23
for the Department, and they were moving forward. My belief
5:26
and understanding was if they came across evidence that would
5:29
establish either that someone helped them in recruiting these young
5:33
girls or was involved in sexual activity with them, that
5:36
they would have proceeded on that case. That was my view,
5:39
and I didn't think that this group of prosecutors would
5:42
stop until they were satisfied that they had gone through
5:45
the evidence. So from my standpoint, both for reasons of
5:48
Justice Department protocol which required them to alert me if
5:52
they actually started going down that trail. As to any
5:55
prominent person. And also just from the practicality that I
5:59
think that kind of information, if someone is trying to
6:01
sit on it, would have bled out eventually. I was
6:05
not aware of that evidence that they had that they
6:07
would do that. I was never given reason to believe
6:10
that they had evidence to make a case. Jasmin Crockett,
6:14
Can I jump in really quickly on this point, just
6:17
to follow up, It's been widely reported that the President
6:20
was informed by the current Attorney General of Pound Bondi
6:23
that he appears in the Department of Justice files on
6:26
Jeffrey Epstein. I'm curious to know in those conversations that
6:30
you recall with president, do you recall ever informing them
6:33
that he was in the Epstein files Number one, I'll
6:37
ask that, so I don't have a compound question the witness. Yeah, well,
6:42
I'm not sure what Epstein files referred to these days,
6:44
but no, I didn't have that kind of conversation with them.
6:48
I think at some point logs were made available or
6:50
republic that he was on Epstein's plane making commutes from
6:54
or flying between Miami and New York, or Miami in
6:57
New Jersey or stuff like that, and I think that
7:00
that got out publicly. I don't recall discussing that with them,
7:03
miss Crockett, okay. Barr And I can't even remember when
7:07
it came out, Crockett, okay. So to be clear, you
7:11
had no direct knowledge of the president himself being named
7:14
in the Epstein investigation, is what you're telling us, Barr. No,
7:19
I'm saying that in the year many years up to
7:22
the case, there had been news coverage reporting on essentially
7:25
two kinds of people, people who were either in business
7:28
or social networks and had connections with them, which to
7:32
me doesn't mean that is a crime. And there are
7:34
many names thrown around, like then, there were names that
7:37
were specific credible evidence or a specific serious evidence by,
7:41
for example, a victim, a specific victim that were exploited
7:45
by a particular person. So there were those sort of people,
7:49
and my understanding was that the New York Office was
7:52
trying to see if there was in fact any evidence
7:54
to support that any of these people actually violated the law.
7:59
Jasmin Crockett, and you have no direct knowledge of any
8:02
of the now young women or women that claimed that
8:04
they had encounters with the president through Epstein. Correct, Barr.
8:09
I was never told by the Southern District that they
8:11
had evidence to support any claim like that. Crockett, thank you,
8:15
witness as to who as to Trump? Crockett, Yes, Witness, Yeah, Crockett, Sorry,
8:20
President Trump. Witness. I was never told that there was
8:23
evidence to support that claim, Jasmin Crockett, I'm done. Sorry.
8:28
Question just shifting back to the evidence that the FBI gathered.
8:32
There have been reports of hidden cameras and recording systems
8:35
at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence. Are you aware of
8:38
the existence of any such cameras and a recording system? Answer?
8:43
I think when the search I was aware. I can't
8:45
even remember if it was after I left or while
8:47
I was there, but I remember that there were cameras
8:50
uncovered during the searches that were made of the Manhattan Building,
8:54
and I think also the island maybe even wasn't there
8:56
a place in New Mexico as well? I heard that
8:59
there were things being on covered like that bullshit. Nobody
9:02
ever rated Zoro Ranch, Bill Barr. This guy knows a
9:05
lot more than he's telling us. Count on it. Question,
9:09
did you ever see the footage? Answer? No? Question from
9:12
the system? Answer no question? And is that footage, to
9:15
your knowledge still within the possession of the DOJ. Answer,
9:19
whatever information was collected, I have no reason to think
9:23
it's not in their possession. I never went and looked
9:25
at the evidence that they were collecting. Question do you
9:28
have an understanding as to why that material hasn't been
9:31
publicly released? Answer? I have no knowledge as to why,
9:34
but I think I understand the potential reasons for it.
9:38
Question which in your view are what? Answer Well, I mean,
9:41
in terms of conducting an investigation, you would have some
9:44
stuff that's grand jury material that was collected pursuant to
9:48
the grand jury process and through the grand jury process,
9:51
and that would normally not be made public. And I
9:53
think there are strong reasons for not making grand jury public,
9:56
including requiring the approval of a court's approval. As to
10:01
other evidence, I think there are strong policy reasons not
10:04
to make it available, which an attorney general at the
10:06
time has to make judgments as to what are the
10:09
reasons to make it public and what are the reasons
10:12
against making it public and among the reasons for not
10:15
making it public. Generally, just here all is is because
10:19
there are frequently, there's frequently tidbits of evidence that can
10:22
be cast publicly as incriminating when in fact, against all
10:26
of the evidence, it isn't, and the judgments about credibility
10:29
are made. I think we've all seen examples where three
10:32
zero two's don't necessarily could be wrong on something they say.
10:35
A witness could later say I didn't say that, and
10:37
so forth. So you have to be careful about what
10:40
you say about people. And so the general principle is
10:44
that if you have enough evidence to charge someone, you
10:46
put that evidence out through the process. But you don't
10:49
just open your files. So I can understand why there
10:52
is reluctance to it. And as I say, an attorney
10:55
general has to make balance question we saw a few
11:00
minutes ago when we looked at the ABC article exhibit
11:03
A Attorney General Pam Bondi did release a significant volume
11:06
of material earlier this year. Do you disagree with their
11:09
decision to do that? Answer? No, I don't agree or disagree.
11:14
I haven't kept up with what's in there. And as
11:16
I say, it's sort of an individual judgment based on balancing.
11:20
And I don't have transparency into all the factors that
11:23
are at play here. I mean a lot of the
11:26
information is out there because of civil cases. You know,
11:29
that's another important part of the context here, A lot
11:32
to the extent there are victims, I mean, which obviously
11:35
there are victims, but a lot of those victims have
11:37
neither been encouraged to bring civil suits or have brought
11:40
civil suits. And in that context, a lot of the
11:43
evidence has been released through those cases. Question and just
11:47
so we're clear on the parameters, Am I correct that
11:50
it was within the Attorney General's authority to release materials
11:53
like this at his or her discretion. Answer, well, there's
11:57
no law against it. I guess the way I look
11:59
at it, there's no law against it except for a
12:02
grand jury secrecy. That's my understanding of the situation. Question Okay, answer,
12:08
but there are consequences for releasing everything out there, because
12:12
that will make it harder to conduct investigations in the
12:14
future on anything if people say, whatever they say is
12:18
going to be out in public, even though it's not
12:20
evidence of a crime. Question, are there, in your view
12:24
certain categories of cases that rise to a level of
12:27
public interest such that the release of this kind of
12:30
information is appropriate despite the considerations that you just articulated. Answer, Well,
12:37
part of my direct experience was obviously the Muller Report.
12:40
Now it's not exactly the same kind of situation, but
12:43
there I did agree to put out the reports, even
12:46
though it canvassed a lot of the evidence, but we
12:48
sanitized it for the grand jury material ever, classified material,
12:52
and also material that was unfair to third parties who
12:55
we were not charging. If we weren't charging someone with
12:58
a crime or accusing someone of a committing our crime,
13:01
that was one of the other considerations that we used.
13:04
But we did at the end of the day, I
13:06
felt the public interest demanded putting out what we put out. Question,
13:11
do you think that a case for a public release
13:14
in the instance of the Mueller report was stronger or
13:16
weaker than the case with respect to the Epstein material. Answer?
13:21
You know, it had to do with the head of
13:23
state and whether he was a Russian spy. I don't
13:25
think you can get more important than that. All right, folks,
13:27
So we're going to wrap up right here, and in
13:29
the next episode, we're going to pick up where we
13:31
left off. All of the information that goes with this
13:34
episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
13:37
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
13:41
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
13:43
off with Bill Barr and his deposition before Congress. Question
13:51
shifting back to the evidence. As you're probably aware, there's
13:55
been significant focus on the possible existence of what's been
13:59
described as an Epstein client list. Is that a term
14:02
that you've heard before? Answer by Barr. I've heard the term,
14:06
but I've always been confused as to what it actually
14:08
referred to. I think it needs to be clarified. Question
14:12
do you have an understanding as to what the terms
14:14
referred to? Answer? Well, I guess my view as Epstein
14:18
sort of had three lives. He was a socialite and
14:21
he had a lot of social activity that was legal,
14:24
and he was meeting prominent people all over the place socially. Second,
14:28
he was a business guy and had business relationships all
14:31
over the place. And third he had a perverted practice
14:34
or recruiting young girls for his own satisfaction, and there
14:37
were some allegations that he made those girls available the
14:40
contacts of his And so when I hear a client list,
14:43
are we talking about his financial clients? I doubt it.
14:46
Are we talking about his social phone book? I doubt it?
14:49
Are we talking about are we sort of equating this
14:52
to acting like a madman out of bordello, and that
14:55
he sort of has a list of his clients that
14:57
used the bordello. That's what I think people are referring to.
15:01
Question so answer, So that's how I take the term. Question. So,
15:05
with that understanding, are you aware of a list that
15:08
fits the category that you just described? Answer like a
15:11
bordello madam? Question yes? Answer No, I was never told
15:17
that there was such a list. I don't have a
15:19
reason to think that there is such a list. But
15:21
by that, we're talking about a list that's put together
15:24
by him. Okay, he's compiled something. That's not to say
15:27
that by going through the evidence, interviews, statements of the victims,
15:30
and so forth, you couldn't figure out who some of
15:33
those people were. Question but again, just tying all this
15:36
together to your understanding, does there exist a single document
15:40
that contains the names of individuals who had participated in
15:44
or were complicit in the crimes that Jeffrey Epstein was
15:47
charged with? Answer? I have no reason. I was never
15:51
told that that was the case by the SDNY or
15:53
the FBI. Question. In public statements, Attorney General Pam Bondi
15:58
had initially seemed to acknowledge that such a document existed
16:02
and was asked specifically about quote unquote the client list,
16:05
but then backtracked, as reflected in the July twenty twenty
16:09
five memorandum from the FBI that explicitly disclaims the existence
16:14
of any such list. Do you have any understanding as
16:17
to why Attorney General Bondi initially made that representation? Answer No,
16:22
I have no knowledge. I could see that her explanation.
16:26
I heard her explanation of it, and I think it's
16:28
potentially a good explanation. I don't discount it. Question did
16:33
it strike you as unusual that she changed your position publicly? Answer? Well,
16:38
I don't know if she changed your position. My understanding
16:41
is that, and I did watch the interview that she
16:43
you know, she started answering. She was basically geared up
16:47
to answer the question about how she was going to
16:49
get the material out, and the question er at the
16:52
end put in the phrase client list, and she blew
16:55
through that and just gave the answer she was going
16:58
to give, like it's on my desk. And her explanation,
17:01
I think is that she was referring to the file
17:03
that she intended to put out. I don't discount that,
17:06
but I have no knowledge. Question Okay, are you aware
17:09
of the document that Jeffrey Epstein kept that he referred
17:12
to in the press as quote unquote the black book? Answer?
17:16
Do I have knowledge of what question? A document that
17:19
the press is described as maintained by mister Epstein and
17:22
referred to as a black book. Answer. I think I've
17:25
heard I've seen that expression in the media, But as
17:28
I say, no one has ever And I sort of
17:30
took that as the client list since versus as a
17:33
phone book with his everybody in it that he socializes
17:36
or does business with. And as I've said, no one
17:39
has ever indicated to me that there is something one
17:42
place that compiles the people that he essentially exploited these
17:45
girls by providing them to these individuals. Question. So you
17:50
haven't seen a phone directory that mister Epstein compiled. Answer
17:53
not that I can recall. You mean a phone directory
17:56
of what question containing names of people that were associated
17:59
with mister Epstein. Answer just generally associated. I don't recall that,
18:04
but I wouldn't be what It wouldn't surprise me. I
18:06
wouldn't think that by itself it had evidentiary value other
18:10
than that he knew a person. Question. You mentioned earlier
18:14
that the FBI continued to investigate the existence of possible
18:17
co conspirators of mister Epstein. Could you just generally walk
18:21
us through the investigative steps that DOJ took to pursue
18:24
those co conspirators? Answer? I mean that was done by
18:28
the Southern District. I mean the person in charge of
18:30
the investigation was US attorney Jeff Berman, and he had
18:34
an experienced team, and they would have he would have
18:37
to the extent that there was any direction or judgments
18:40
being made that required supervision, he would have made them,
18:43
not me. Question, did you have any visibility into subpoena
18:48
that SDNY issued? Answer visibility in the sense of reproving
18:52
them ahead of time. I don't recall approving subpoenas in
18:54
that case. I don't recall issues coming up to me.
18:57
It's possible, I mean a lot was coming in question.
19:02
And what about knowledge after the fact that they had
19:04
been issued? Answer well, I think to the extent I
19:07
read things that may have involved like that. I assume
19:10
they got search warrants to collect stuff from the house
19:13
and things like that. Question, but you didn't get any
19:16
direct information from SDNY regarding the issuance of subpoenas answer,
19:21
not that I can recall. Question and what about witness interviews? Answer?
19:26
I think there was a dispute over Prince Andrew. Question okay,
19:29
and how did you he interrupts her? Not between me
19:33
and the office, but between Prince Andrew and the Southern District.
19:36
And I was aware of the dispute because I forgot
19:38
how I became aware, whether it was public or what? Question?
19:42
And what do you recall of the dispute? Answer? I
19:45
think they wanted to talk to him and he wouldn't
19:47
really submit to an interview. That's my recollection of what
19:49
the dispute was over. Question and did you discuss that
19:53
with the SDN why answer? No? I think after the fact,
19:56
I think Berman went out and gave a pretty strong statement.
19:59
I think he may have been standing in front of
20:01
the house, as I recall, something to that effect. And
20:03
it was about Andrew basically trying to say publicly that
20:07
he was cooperating and in real fact he was not cooperating.
20:10
And I think I talked to him about that question
20:13
talk to answer after it was his question, mister Berman,
20:19
Barr Yeah. Question. A number of prominent individuals have been
20:23
alleged to be connected to mister Epstein as his clients
20:26
or otherwise as associates. What I'd like to do is
20:29
read to you a list of names, and for each
20:32
I ask you to state whether, to your knowledge, that
20:34
individual was within the scope of DJ's investigation. If anything,
20:39
DOJ determined with respect to the individual? Does that make sense? Answer? Yeah,
20:44
But I mean I don't know what within the scope
20:47
of investigation means, whether they were subjects or targets. Question.
20:50
How about witnesses subjects or targets? O callahan in an
20:55
Epstein investigation that lasted for multiple decades, You're going to
20:58
ask him if any of these individuals wherever somehow part
21:02
of that investigation redacted? Yeah, O'Callahan, that's too broad. I
21:07
don't think it actually comports with what was stated. The
21:09
scope of this is redacted. Okay, I can come at
21:12
it in a different way. I'll just read the first name,
21:15
Alan Dershowitz. Did mister Dershowitz, to your knowledge, ever become
21:19
relevant to the Epstein investigation in any respect? The witness
21:23
I don't know, O'Callahan. And this is all Barr I assumed.
21:28
I did not go and ask them who you're talking to? Now,
21:31
that in itself sort of suggests they're targeting someone or
21:34
even think someone is a subject versus a witness and
21:37
so forth. But I didn't get into that. I didn't
21:40
go up to them and say, gee, are you looking
21:42
into Dershowitz? Are you looking into Governor Richardson? Are you
21:45
looking into George Mitchell? Are you looking at Donald Trump?
21:48
Are you looking at Branson? Or whatever? I didn't do that. Well,
21:51
maybe you should have. How about that, Darth barr I
21:54
saw names appearing in the media hyping all these so
21:58
called connections. I did not ask them whether, but I
22:01
assume that some of these people were examined redacted. So
22:04
you didn't discuss Alan Dershowitz with anyone else within DJ
22:08
the witness no I obviously may have mentioned, may have
22:12
discussed Dershowitz sifting around my office saying wow, O'Callahan. That's
22:17
part of the problem is that there's so much media
22:19
reporting witness, right, O'Callahan, media reporting on individuals that in
22:24
common workplace conversation, stuff like that happens. He just happens
22:28
to be the Attorney General of the United States. Barr
22:32
I did not delve into the investigation of Epstein redacted,
22:36
so Barr, I let the investigators let the chips fall
22:39
where they may redacted understood. So again, just for the
22:42
sake of clarity, Apart from information that came to you
22:45
through the media, what was publicly reported was, to your knowledge,
22:49
Alan Dershowitz relevant to the investigation in any way. Barr,
22:54
I don't know. I mean these questions are a little
22:56
bit too broad for my taste, O'Callahan. It's a very
22:59
difficult thing thing you're asking him to do. Barr. Of
23:02
course he's relevant to the investigation. You would think redacted.
23:06
Were their discussions within the DOJ about Alan Dershowitz to
23:09
your recollection? Barr, as I say, sitting around my office,
23:13
people could say, gee, Professor Dershowitz is in hot water.
23:17
But I did not. I was not in communication with
23:19
the SDNY about the handling of the investigation. Oh callahan,
23:25
I mean that might be an approach if SDNY ever
23:27
briefed them. You know, these people are being targets of
23:30
the investigation because SDNY, as he testified to over and
23:34
over again, was in charge of the investigation, so they
23:37
were going to report they would have reported an urgent
23:40
matter to them. Barr. I don't recall any discussion with
23:44
SDNY where we discussed the nature and weight of evidence
23:48
that they had against the individuals that, in my mind
23:50
had been identified publicly as people who could be involved
23:55
and in proper activities. I was told that the office
23:59
had evidence in its possession that established that somebody was
24:02
involved in those activities. I don't remember sitting down discussing,
24:05
you know, g here's the weight of the evidence, or
24:09
here's something that gives us leads we can pursue. I
24:12
wasn't focused on, you know, myself, looking at or hovering
24:15
over the handling of that case. Question Okay, So for
24:19
the rest of the names, I will couch the question
24:21
as follows. Did you ever become aware of each of
24:24
these individuals either being a witness or subject or a
24:28
target in the SDN WHY investigation? Answer? Become aware of
24:33
you had things published all the time? Question right bar
24:37
in the press. Question about their formal status in the
24:40
dj investigation. I don't think that would be publicly reported. Answer? Okay,
24:45
the formal status that was provided to me by the
24:47
SDN Y question yep, that's all I'm asking answer okay.
24:51
Question so the next name is David Copperfield. Answer I
24:55
don't recall that being so question, Michael Jackson. I don't
24:58
recall that being so question Prince Andrew Barr. And when
25:03
I say I don't recall, I mean my best recollection.
25:05
I did not get that information question. Okay, answer go ahead.
25:10
I mean just read down the list. Oh Callahan, I
25:12
think the question about Prince Andrew is pending. Barr. That's right,
25:15
I was aware of Prince Andrew's issue. You know, go
25:18
through the list. I'll tell you. Oh Callahan, So just
25:21
to clarify, you're aware of Prince Andrew being sought as
25:23
a witness by the Southern District Barr, Yes, and then
25:29
he dispute over him cooperating. I was aware of that question,
25:34
Bill Clinton Barr, same answer question, Bill Richardson answer, same
25:38
answer question. George Mitchell, same answer question. Glenn Dubin, same answer,
25:44
Bill Gates, same answer question, Leon Black, same answer question. Okay, Now,
25:50
Jasmin Crockett interrupts. Just to clarify, when you're saying, same answer,
25:54
is that the same answer as Prince Andrew or is
25:56
that the same answer as the prior because but ones
26:00
other than that, Crockett, they were different witness other than
26:04
Prince Andrew Crockett. Okay, just to be clear for the record,
26:07
and really really quickly, I'm going to jump in just
26:09
before we have to wrap, because we're talking about the investigations.
26:13
Maxwell was investigated during your tenure, not necessarily taken to
26:17
trial while you were still at the DOJ. She is
26:20
someone that was involved in the SDNY situation. You were
26:23
aware that she was not born in this country, correct bar. Yes, Crockett. Okay.
26:29
You were also aware that a jury of her peers
26:31
found her guilty of five out of six counts that
26:34
were brought against her by the SDNY, including child sex
26:37
trafficking conspiracy, correct bar. Yes, Crockett. In addition to that,
26:43
you have been made aware through public reports. Well, let
26:45
me clarify this child sex trafficking is not considered to
26:49
be a low level offense in the federal government, correct bar.
26:52
I'm not sure what low level means, but it's a
26:55
serious offense, Crockett. It's definitely a felony, correct bar. Oh, yes, Crockett,
27:01
and a person can face up to life imprisonment for it,
27:03
correct Barr. I haven't looked at the statute, but that
27:06
wouldn't surprise me. Crockett. Okay. And typically when someone is
27:10
classified by the time that they enter into the Bureau
27:13
of Prisons, their classification is usually based upon a multitude
27:17
of things, one of them being how serious of an
27:19
offensive person has been found guilty of, correct witness. That's
27:23
one of the factors, Crockett, Okay, in addition to their
27:26
criminal history and other things. But long story short, they're
27:29
looking at whether or not the person is potentially a
27:32
danger to the community, correct bar. That's another factor, Crockett.
27:37
When you were reading your public things, I'm assuming you've
27:40
heard that there has been a transfer approved from MS
27:42
Maxwell to a minimum security prison camp. Are you aware
27:45
of that? Oh, Callahan, you're referring to press reports, Congresswoman Crockett, Yes,
27:50
because that bar I've seen, Crockett. That would be the
27:54
only way, Barr says, I've seen those reports, Crockett during
27:58
your tenure as Attorney General, during either time. I'm curious
28:02
to know, are you ever is it ever within your
28:04
recollection that there was someone who had been convicted, finally convicted. Well,
28:09
I guess it's not final. She's still on appeal, convicted
28:11
of five counts of child sex trafficking, and they somehow
28:14
ended up transferred to a minimum security prison camp. Barr.
28:18
I mean, off the top of my head, I can't
28:20
remember a situation like that, Jasmin Crockett. In fact, you'd
28:24
agree with me that in order for someone to be
28:26
transferred under those types of circumstances, it would actually take
28:30
a higher level of approval. That is not something that
28:33
just any low level BOP person would be able to do.
28:36
Correct Barr, I wish that were correct. You never know, Crockett,
28:42
because mistakes happened. Bar. Yeah, sometimes you wake up and
28:46
you find that something's happened, like taking someone off suicide watch, Crockett.
28:51
But you would agree with me that the policy in
28:53
general is not to put someone who's been convicted of
28:55
those types of crimes into a minimum security camp. Barr. Actually,
29:00
I think the way the system works is the political
29:03
level usually allows the Bureau of Prisons broad leeway in
29:06
determining how people are handled under their structure and using
29:09
their criteria, and if they disagree, they might intervene. Crockett understood, Bar,
29:16
That's how I think the system generally operates. Crockett understood.
29:20
To the best of your knowledge, whether it's during your
29:23
tenure or during reports, She's never been in the type
29:27
of facility in the last four years of her incarceration
29:30
until now, correct, Barr. I gather that's the case, Crockett. Okay, thanks,
29:36
all right, we're gonna wrap up right here, and we're
29:39
gonna pick up where we left off in the next episode.
29:41
All of the information that goes with this episode can
29:44
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
29:47
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
29:51
we're picking up where we left off with Bill Barr
29:54
and his deposition chairman, Comer General Barr. May I jump
30:00
in for a couple of questions. Were you aware of
30:02
the involvement of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign in
30:06
the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? Barr, to the
30:11
extent it was determined by Durham. Yes, Durham was looking
30:14
into that. Comer. Did you review documents that indicated the
30:18
involvement of former Secretary Clinton in the Russia collusion investigation
30:23
involving President Trump? Barr? Did I look at documents, Comer, yes,
30:28
Bar yes, Comer, to the best of your recollection. Did
30:31
you at any point attempted to classify items in the
30:35
Russia collusion investigation, Barr. Some items are classified and some
30:40
I opposed to classifying. Comber. Okay, were you aware of
30:44
the involvement of President Obama or his officials in the
30:47
Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? Barr? I was aware
30:52
of meetings held at the end of the Obama administration.
30:55
They were described Comer and did you review any documents? Barr?
31:00
I think I saw a set of notes taken by
31:02
an intelligence official, perhaps Comer. Okay, all right, thank you, sir.
31:07
Question and much like disclaimer at the beginning of the
31:11
Minority Hour, I might ask some similar questions this hour,
31:14
but we're going to start back with mister Epstein's death
31:17
and some of the irregularities within the jail. We talked
31:20
about the missed institutional counts and observations, and the two guards,
31:25
two corrections officers, Tovin Owell and Michael Thomas were eventually
31:29
indicted for falsifying those records. Were you involved in that indictment?
31:34
I was. I think it was passed by me. I
31:37
think I was informed as to what they were going
31:39
to do. Question. I think they eventually entered a plea agreement.
31:44
Bar yep question, and the case was otherwise dropped. Were
31:48
you involved in that at all, Barr? I think people
31:51
described it to me, I think before it happened. Yeah. Question,
31:54
But much like some of the Epstein investigation, you're not
31:57
involved in the prosecutorial decision on whether or not bar
32:01
cuts them off. Right. Question to take the case on
32:05
the institutional counts. My understanding of these is that at
32:09
set intervals corrections, officers need to go through their area
32:13
of responsibility and just do account of the inmates to
32:16
make sure that everyone is accounted for. Is that a
32:19
fair summary of that answer? The count process. Yes, and
32:25
they report the counts, I think, is it? I forgot
32:28
how frequently they report the counts, but they call in
32:31
the counts. Question from the indictment, at least they were
32:35
responsible for counts at four pm, ten pm, twelve am,
32:39
three am, and five am. Does that sound right? Answer?
32:42
Sounds right? Question? And then, to the best of your recollection,
32:46
were these institutional accounts done by those officers? Answer? I
32:50
can't remember if one of them was done, but they
32:53
generally were not done. Question And then you testified earlier,
32:57
but the officers falsified the records. Is that correct? Answer? Yes? Question?
33:02
Moving to the thirty minute rounds. Again, my understanding of
33:05
the rounds or that they were directed by the psych
33:08
Department and the medical department because mister Epstein was coming
33:11
off Suicide Watch and coming off kind of the more
33:15
enhanced observation. Is that correct? Answer? Yes, I'm not sure
33:20
if it was. I think that's part of and parcel
33:22
of this level of scrutiny. Question like the step down
33:26
from Suicide Watch. Answer yes, question, and my understanding again
33:32
is that they would have conducted this twice an hour,
33:35
once the first thirty minutes, once in the second, at
33:38
irregular intervals, and at least forty minutes apart. Does that
33:41
sound right? Answer? Yes, question to your recollection? Answer to
33:46
my knowledge, yes, question to the best of your recollection,
33:50
were these thirty minute rounds done? Answer? I believe that's
33:54
why they were prosecuted for not doing them and lying
33:57
about it. Question and then to your call the officers
34:01
falsified the records? Answer yes, question, I believe you said it,
34:05
and I know I have, But I want to ask directly,
34:08
were those thirty minute rounds specific to mister Epstein? Answer?
34:12
I believe they were specific to anyone who warrants that
34:15
kind of level of watch. I don't know who else
34:17
did in that shoe question, So that was my next question.
34:21
Do you recall if anyone on L block required thirty
34:24
minute observation or even in nine South? I don't know.
34:28
Question there was I can introduce if you need me to.
34:31
But there was a sign on the SACHU officer's desk
34:34
that read, mandatory rounds must be conducted every thirty minutes
34:38
on Epstein, as per God and as per God. I'm
34:41
assuming it was a joke for the warden or something.
34:44
Answer right. Question do you recall hearing about that sign?
34:48
Answer after the fact question prior to your departure as
34:52
Attorney General. Answer I can't remember. Question and what do
34:56
you recall any discussion regarding that sign? Answer it may
35:00
have been part of the case, in other words, that
35:03
it was clear to them that it was a priority
35:06
to conduct those rounds as to Epstein. Question part of
35:09
the case against Noel and Thomas. Answer yes, question we've
35:14
gone through all of the kind of major irregularities. After
35:18
you learned of these, did you take any disciplinary action
35:21
against anyone involved? Answer? It could be referred to as disciplinary.
35:26
I think on the very day I was informed of
35:28
his death, I started reaching out to find the old
35:31
management of BOP that I was familiar with and had
35:35
always considered to be, you know, fantastic managers of BOP.
35:39
So I started lining them up because I intended to
35:41
see if I could bring them in. And then within days,
35:45
I think, maybe very quickly, I reassigned the warden and
35:48
I replaced I think the following had the people come
35:51
in to interview within a few days with the job,
35:54
and then I think within a week I moved out
35:56
the head of BOP and put in new people. Question
36:00
and to point in a new deputy BOP director. Answer yes,
36:03
both the top and the deputy. And that was all
36:06
done within a week, and I left the other discipline
36:09
up to them to meet out. Question they would be
36:12
the ones that placed the two guards on leave? Answer
36:16
I don't know. I think they were probably put on
36:18
leave right away. Answer okay, but further discipline in figuring out,
36:24
you know, who was responsible for what oversight? But I
36:27
think there was no question they admitted it right up
36:29
front that they screwed up, as they said, question that
36:35
they were asleep at the desk? Answer yeah, question was
36:38
there to your knowledge, was there a larger investigation into
36:41
whether or not these issues were systemic at MCC or
36:44
if they were isolated to Epstein. Answer, I actually can't
36:49
answer that authoritatively. I think BOP does a lot of
36:52
investigations of the BOP and I think maybe their report
36:55
on this incident says this was not new news. I mean,
36:59
this is a problem question. Uh huh. Answer. I think BOP,
37:03
you know, has gone downhill in terms of its professional
37:06
you know, its management structure and professionalism. Part of that
37:10
is the nature of the job and especially in big cities,
37:12
the pay rate and so forth, it's hard to get
37:15
good people. Question MCC I believe is now closed. Answer
37:20
I think it was closed after I left. Yeah, question
37:23
it was after you left. Answer well, I stopped new
37:27
prisoners from going in. I believe that's what I did,
37:30
and I think I redirected them to Brooklyn, MDC. Question.
37:34
Thank you. I'm going to ask a few questions about
37:36
the individual cases, similar to what my colleagues asked, and
37:40
I might have some follow ups based off those questions.
37:43
You testified a little bit, you know, I want to
37:45
quote it as best as possible that you wanted to
37:48
let investigators let the chips fall where they may, in
37:51
other words, not involve yourself too heavily in the twenty
37:54
nineteen prosecution answer investigation question investigation and general. And then
38:01
you said that I want to get it right, that
38:03
it's DOJ policy to bring to the Attorney General's attention
38:06
if a prominent person was going to be the subject
38:09
of an investigation. Is that a fair summary of what
38:12
the policy is. Answer? Yes, it's called urgent reports. I
38:17
think they have to file an urgent report. Question Did
38:21
the Southern District of New York ever file an urgent
38:24
report regarding the Epstein case? Answer? I can't remember. I
38:28
don't remember what they did, but you know, certainly I
38:31
was never informed by them that they were focused. You
38:33
know that they believed they had a predicate to actually
38:36
investigate the individual. Question and pardon me, I don't know.
38:41
Answer other than Maxwell and Epstein. Question, I don't know
38:45
the actual like formal designations, but they wouldn't have to
38:48
Would they have to issue a formal report if they
38:51
wanted to interview someone as a witness that was a
38:54
prominent individual, or just if that prominent individual was going
38:57
to become a suspect or a target in the investigation? Answer?
39:02
I don't think it was that refined, I think they
39:04
had to use their rule of common sense as to
39:07
what would the national leadership of the department want to
39:10
know about? And just interject real quick, you see what
39:13
he's saying right here right that the bosses have to know.
39:17
So taking that and bringing it over to what happened
39:20
with a costa what does it tell you question? Uh
39:25
huh answer? And you know, if they decided, you know,
39:28
had some predicate to actually pursue an individual, you know,
39:31
moving into the potential area of a target, they would
39:34
have to do an urgent report. Yeah. Question and to
39:38
the best, like out of this list that the minority
39:41
read to you, the one that you were called elevating witness,
39:43
suspect or target was Prince Andrew. Answer, I don't know
39:47
if he was a target, and you know, I guess
39:49
to my knowledge, he was at least a witness question
39:52
Uh huh answer. I don't know if it went beyond that,
39:56
but you know that's somebody who in real time I
39:58
understood they were trying to get in the door to
40:00
question question understanding again what you said, you don't recall
40:05
specific urgent reports being file with you, would that have
40:08
been someone that met the criteria of a prominent person.
40:12
Answer in my mind question, and I'll ask specifically to him.
40:16
Do you recall whether or not you got an urgent report?
40:19
They're cut off by bar and it could affect foreign
40:22
relations and so forth. It's a sensible rule. Now, is
40:25
it always followed by US attorneys? No, there are many,
40:29
that's it. Not many, But there's sometimes the case where
40:31
you don't get a report for something that you should
40:34
have been And the SDNY is relatively well known for
40:37
playing its cards very close to the vest question and again,
40:42
to the best of your recollection, you never got an
40:44
urgent report regarding Prince Andrew. Answer, I don't recall. Quite possibly,
40:50
but I don't recall that. All right, folks, we're gonna
40:53
wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're
40:55
gonna pick up where we left off. All of the
40:57
information that goes with this episode can be found in
41:01
the description box.