Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / James Comer And The Letter Sent To Leon Black (Part 1)

Transcript

James Comer And The Letter Sent To Leon Black (Part 1) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 start taking
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: a look at the letter sent by Congress to Leon Black.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: And this letter was dated August 18th, 2026. Dear Mr. Cutler,
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has received your
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: July 24th, 2026 letter outlining arguments for why your client,
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: Leon Black, should not be required to fully comply with
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: the subpoena issued to him on June 26, 2026, for
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: non-disclosure agreements in his possession, custody, or control. In response
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: to this subpoena, your client produced a single non-disclosure agreement
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: while claiming it's the only one within the scope of
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: the committee's goals. The committee rejects your assertion and reiterates
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: that full compliance with the subpoena issued to your client
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: requires the production of all non-disclosure agreements to which he
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: is a party. On March 3rd, the committee sent a
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: letter to Mr. Black to request his appearance at a
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: voluntary transcribed interview before the committee. To accommodate Mr. Black's schedule,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: the committee scheduled his transcribed interview for June 26. On
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: April 16th, you confirmed by email that your client would
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: appear before the committee on this scheduled date. The committee's
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: letter and request for Mr. Black to testify was based
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: on public reporting, documents released by the Department of Justice,
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: and documents obtained by the committee showing Mr. Black had
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: information that will assist the committee's investigation. 1. Scope of
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: transcribed interview was clear and never subject to limitation. Your
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: insistence that the committee exceeded the stated scope of the
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: transcribed interview of Mr. Black on June 26 is unfounded
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: and without merit. The committee's March 3rd letter clearly articulated
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: its investigative scope and intent, including the alleged mismanagement of
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: the federal government's investigation, into Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, and Glenn Maxwell. Two,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: the circumstances, and subsequent investigations, of Mr. Epstein's death. Three,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: the operation, of trafficking rings, and the way the federal government,
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: to effectively combat them. Four, ways in which Mr. Epstein,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: and Ms. Maxwell, sought to curry favor, and exercise influence,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: to protect their illegal activities. And five, potential violations, of
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: ethical rules, related to elected officials. The questions posed to Mr.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Black and the subpoenaed documents at issue fall within this scope.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: Your July 24th letter claims that during an April 8th
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: meeting with the committee, Mr. Black's counsel expressed an interest
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: in engaging in a dialogue regarding the scope of Mr.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: Black's transcribed interview. However, no such dialogue ever occurred. To
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: be clear, the committee never agreed to any limitations regarding
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: on the scope of Mr. Black's interview that were not
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: already articulated in the committee's March 3rd letter. Furthermore, you
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: were informed that the committee would cover any topic and
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: use any document relevant to its investigation during the transcribed interview,
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: as has been the practice during the totality of this investigation.
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: The mere fact that a topic was not identified during
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: good faith discussions among counsel does not mean it falls
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: outside the scope of the interview. because such discussions are
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: inherently non-exhaustive. The committee is not required to articulate in
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: advance every item that is potentially pertinent to or within
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: the scope of its investigation to documents used by the committee.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: Your letter asserts that Mr. Black's counsel understood the majority
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: staff to explain that they intended to focus the interview
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: on information and documents in the public domain. You then
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: cited specifically to the chairman's statement regarding NDAs and bank
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: records reflecting certain alleged financial violations. This framing can only
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: be understood by the committee as an intentional misrepresentation by
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: you of the pre-interview discussions with the committee. During the
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: April 28th in-person meeting, the committee informed you that if
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: it were to enter documents into the record as exhibits
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: during the interview, most of the documents already existed in
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: the public domain. It appears Mr. Black's counsel misinterpreted this
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: statement to mean that all documents to be entered into
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: the record, and based on your letter, that all questions
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: posed by the committee would exist in or come from
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: the public domain. That was never the case. Indeed, the
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: expectation that questioners would likely focus on publicly available documents
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: does not equate to an assurance or promise that the
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: committee would only enter into the record or refer to
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: public documents. the Committee was well within its rights to
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: enter into the record or question the witness about any document,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: whether publicly disclosed or not. That pertained to its investigation,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: as it has done, through investigations not only in this
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: current Congress, but also in past Congresses. Additionally, the discussion
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: about the use of documents in the transcribed interview did
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: not center around the totality of the documents to be
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: used and their origins, but rather around the fact that
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: you requested that the Committee... share exhibits in advance of
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: the interview. The committee was very clear in its response.
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: It would not share exhibits in advance consistent with its
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: practice during this investigation. Further, your statement that the committee's
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: emphasis on nondisclosure agreements and records regarding alleged bank violations
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: are directly at odds with representations made by the majority
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: staff is erroneous. In addition, to making no such representation
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: related to nondisclosure agreements and bank records The likelihood that
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: the committee would inquire about non-disclosure agreements and bank records
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: should have been apparent to you and your client considering
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the committee's extensively transparent coverage of these topics throughout the investigation.
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: Prior to Mr. Black's interview, the committee made a public
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: letter it sent to the U.S. Department of the Treasury
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: on August 31, 2025, requesting bank records pertaining to Mr.
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The committee made public two more letters,
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: that had sent November 18, 2025, to both J.P. Morgan
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: Chase and Deutsche Bank, requesting certain financial records related to Mr.
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: Epstein and Ms. Maxwell as former clients of these institutions.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: The committee also inquired about non-disclosure agreements related to Jeffrey Epstein,
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell, and their associations in the transcribed interviews of
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: another witness, the transcript of which was made public prior
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: to Mr. Black's transcribed interview. Your claim that your client
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: did not anticipate the committee's use of such documents or
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: the questions posed is simply not plausible, and even if
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: it were a true misapprehension on your part, would not
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: result from the fault of the committee or its staff. 3.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: Questions about payment to Epstein You are also concerned that
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: the committee did not ask your client any questions during
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: the June 26th transcribed interview about payments to Mr. Epstein.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: This argument lacks both context and merit. The committee was
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: less than an hour into its interview when your client
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: began refusing to answer important questions. Had your client not
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: refused to answer questions and not chosen to terminate the
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: interview after being served the document and deposition subpoenas, the
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: committee would have continued with its questioning for multiple rounds.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: Rest assured, the topic of Mr. Black's payments to Mr.
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: Epstein would have been thoroughly covered, notwithstanding your client's refusal
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: to answer the committee's other pertinent questions. To take issue
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: with questions the committee did or did not address during
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: a single round of transcribed interview, which was replete with
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: legal arguments before Mr. Black ended the interview, is incredibly disingenuous. 4.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: Refusal to answer questions about personal matters. On June 22nd, Mr.
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: Black's counsel communicated that on another call to the committee
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: that Mr. Black would respectfully decline to answer questions that
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: related solely to his personal life. Not only was this
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: new information conveyed to the committee just four days prior
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: to this transcribed interview, but it was also the first
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: time the committee had been informed of any limitations about
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: what your client was willing to discuss in a voluntary setting.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: This limitation did not arise from any agreement with the committee,
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: nor was it a result of any waiver of the
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: scope of the committee's investigation. Your own July 24th letter
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: characterized the committee's response by saying the majority staff represented
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: that your client's refusal to answer questions would be problematic
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: insofar as it would seem to exclude responding to questions
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: regarding whether Mr. Black had a sexual relationship with a
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: woman that the committee might believe be tied to Epstein.
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: Your letter then failed to dispute that response and instead
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: argued that Mr. Black was not asked Such a specific
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: question during the transcribed interview. Not only does your argument
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: fail to negate the committee's position, but it relies on
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: a categorically false assertion, and yet again, it's missing context.
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: During the interview of your client, the committee asks the
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: following questions pertaining to Mr. Black's sexual relationship with the
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: woman associated with Mr. Epstein. Question, have you ever engaged
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: in sexual conduct of any kind with Ms. Ganieva? Answer,
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: I had an affair with her. Answer, he was not
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: involved in the negotiation. adult affair with her. Question, was Mr.
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: Epstein involved in the negotiations on these terms? Answer, he
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: was not involved in the negotiation. He was somebody that
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: I told I was being blackmailed and extorted to, as
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: well as to my lawyer, Paul Weiss. When the committee
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: made additional inquiries about this woman and the existence of
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: a nondisclosure agreement between her and your client, refused to
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: answer the committee's questions. All right, folks, we're going to
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: wrap up episode one right here. And in the next episode,
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: we'll pick up where we left off, and that's with
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: Part 5. Non-disclosure agreements are within the scope of investigation.
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.