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

Transcript

The Epstein Witnesses Had Their Say. Now Compare It to the Evidence (Part 1) (10/1/26) · 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. Now that Congress has worked its way through
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: the bulk of its Epstein-related testimony, depositions, interviews, subpoenas, and
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: document releases, we finally have enough distance to start looking
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: at the entire process instead of reacting to every new
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: transcript as it drops. For months, we watched one person
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: after another sit down and answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein,
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: their relationship with him, what they knew, what they remembered,
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: and what role they played inside one of the most
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: infamous scandals of the modern era. Some of those interviews
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: produced genuinely useful information. Others raised more questions than they answered.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: And some left me wondering what exactly Congress intended to
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: do once all the testimony was finally collected. Because gathering
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: testimony is one thing. Figuring out what it actually means
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: is something else entirely. Anybody can sit in a room
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: and answer questions, offer explanations, qualify their memories, and describe
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: events from 20 or 30 years ago in whatever way
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: they remember them today. The real test comes afterward, when
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: those answers are placed beside the documents, the emails, the
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: financial records, the calendars, the court filings, the previous statements,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: and the accounts of the people who lived through Epstein's
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: world firsthand. That's where this investigation either becomes something meaningful
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: or or turns into another enormous pile of transcripts that
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: Washington eventually forgets about. And now that the talking is
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: largely over, that's the question sitting directly in front of us.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: Because now that the parade of the Epstein-related depositions and
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: transcribed interviews before Congress has largely played itself out, the
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: most important phase of the investigation should finally begin. Taking
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: testimony was never supposed to be the finish line. It
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: was supposed to produce a record that could be checked, challenged, corroborated,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: and where necessary, disproved. Instead, the danger now is that
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: hundreds of pages of testimony and hours of video simply
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: get dumped into the public domain and quietly become another
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: layer of sediment in the Epstein story. And that would
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: be an extraordinary waste of the investigative authority Congress spent
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: months telling the country it intended to use. Darren Indyk testified,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: Richard Kahn testified, Sarah Kellan, Leslie Groff, Catherine Rumler, and
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: Tova Noel were all questioned as part of the committee's
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: sprawling inquiry. The committee itself publicly released or acknowledged those
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: interviews and depositions, creating precisely the kind of permanent record
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: against which documents, emails, calendars, financial records, survivor statements, court filings,
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: and previous testimony can now be measured. What happens with
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: that record now will tell us far more about this
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: investigation than another press conference ever could. Because listen, Congressional
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: testimony doesn't exist in some hermetically sealed chamber where every
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: answer has to be taken at face value. Epstein left
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: behind an enormous contemporaneous record. There are emails, financial documents,
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: appointment calendars, corporate records, flight information, court exhibits, sworn statements,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: law enforcement reports, civil discovery, bank records, estate documents, photographs,
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: address books, and decades of testimony from survivors and other witnesses.
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: And that material gives investigators something previous generations looking into
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: Epstein often lacked. The ability to place what somebody says
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: today besides what was recorded when the events were actually happening.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: Memory can fade, and honest people can remember things differently
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: after 20 years. When a witness says one thing and
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: the contemporaneous record appears to say another, the responsible response
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: is not to shrug and move along. It's to drill
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: into the discrepancy until there's an explanation. When several discrepancies
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: begin piling up around the same witness, the need for
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: scrutiny becomes even greater. And when the subject is Jeffrey Epstein,
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: a man whose operations survived for years, behind layers of lawyers, employees, companies,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: money managers, social relationships, and institutional protection, taking convenient recollections
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: on faith would almost be comically inadequate. And speaking of
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: comically inadequate... That brings us to Darren Indyk and Richard Kahn.
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: Indyk was Epstein's longtime attorney, and Kahn was deeply involved
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: in his financial affairs, and both men eventually became co-executors
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: of Epstein's estate. Congress had already subpoenaed the estate through
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: Indyk and Kahn before bringing them in for depositions, and
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: their role made their testimony inherently relevant to understanding the
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: financial and legal architecture surrounding Epstein. More recently, the Wall
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: Street Journal reported, reported that federal prosecutors in Manhattan had
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: opened an investigation examining Indyk and Kahn and seeking information
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: concerning financial and legal transactions connected to Epstein. That development
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: makes the congressional record surrounding both men even more significant.
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: Their answers are no longer merely historical curiosities. They potentially
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: sit beside an active federal inquiry examining areas in which
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: both men had direct professional responsibilities. Every substantive answer they
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: gave Congress should therefore be compared carefully with documents now
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: available to investigators. Anything less would amount to gathering evidence
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: without bothering to investigate it. And of course the same
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: principle applies to Leslie Groff, whose transcribed interview occurred on
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: June 9th and was subsequently released by the committee. Groff
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: worked in Epstein's office for years and appeared throughout the
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: documentary history surrounding his schedule and communications. That alone made
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: the precision of her recollections important. Nobody should be prosecuted
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: because their memory differs from somebody else's recollection, and nobody
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: should be accused criminally because an answer sounds evasive. But
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: Congress has something better than impressions available to it. It
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: has records. It can identify a specific statement, identify the
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: documentary evidence bearing on that statement, determine whether the two
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: can be reasonably reconciled, and ask the witness to explain
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: the difference. That is investigation in the old-fashioned sense of
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: the word. What should inspire skepticism is an investigative process
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: that extracts the testimony, publishes the transcript, generates a day
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: or two of headlines, and then appears to lose interest
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: in determining whether important answers were actually accurate. Now, Kathy
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: Rumler presents the same basic challenge from a different corner
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: of Epstein's world. The former White House counsel appeared for
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: a transcribed interview on July 15th. and the committee released
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: the transcript two weeks later. Her relationship with Epstein has
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: generated scrutiny precisely because it existed after Epstein had already
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: become a registered sex offender. That makes the chronology indispensable.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: Who introduced whom? When meetings occurred, what services or introductions
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: were discussed? Who else was present? What communications preceded those meetings?
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: And what continued afterward are questions that can often be
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: testered against the records rather than recollection alone. Investigators do
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: not have to choose between believing Rumler automatically and assuming
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: the worst about her. They can follow the paperwork. If
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: the documents confirm her account, then they can confirm it.
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: If the documents materially contradict an important answer, Congress has
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: an obligation to confront that contradiction rather than pretend the
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: transcript completed the job. This is exactly why serious investigations,
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: billed timelines, instead of simply collecting interviews. Sarah Kellan's appearance
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: demonstrates that the committee understood this concept at least when
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: testimony produced allegations concerning somebody else. Kellan appeared for a
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: transcribed interview on May 21st. After hearing allegations during the interview,
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: Chairman James Comer and several Republican members sent a letter
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: to the Justice Department requesting an investigation and specifically acknowledged
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: that the committee itself was not a law enforcement agency
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: capable of determining whether criminal guilt. That was procedurally sensible.
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: Congress developed information it considered potentially criminal and referred that
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: information to the institution equipped to investigate it. The uncomfortable
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: question is why that same seriousness should disappear when concerns
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: arise about testimony given directly to Congress. A referral is
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: not a conviction. It's not even a declaration that a
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: crime occurred. It's a request for trained prosecutors and investigators
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: to determine whether whether the evidence satisfies the law. If
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: Congress encounters substantial evidence suggesting that a material statement made
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: during its own investigation was knowingly false, the appropriate response
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: is not theatrical outrage, but the same mechanism it has
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: already used elsewhere. Preserve the evidence, establish the contradiction, obtain
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: an explanation, and refer the matter where warranted. Now, Tova
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Noel's testimony deserves similar scrutiny because the circumstances surrounding Epstein's
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: death have been picked apart for years and because Noel
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: was one of the officers working at the MCC during
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: the final night of Epstein's life. The committee interviewed her
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: on May 18th and later released the transcript publicly. In
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: that interview, Noel discussed the failures that occurred inside the
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: jail and her subsequent treatment by the Bureau of Prisons,
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: including her contention that she'd been punished more harshly because
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: the inmate involved was Jeffrey Epstein. Now, those statements can
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: be made against disciplinary records, staffing records, internal reports, investigative findings,
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: contemporaneous communication, and the enormous paper trail generated after Epstein's death.
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that every inconsistency is sinister. It means
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: Congress has no excuse. for leaving inconsistencies unresolved. Epstein's death
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: has attracted enough unsupported speculation without Congress contributing another pile
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: of unanswered questions. The cure for speculation is not another
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: declaration from Washington. It's a meticulous reconstruction of what the
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: documentary record actually establishes. And this is where the entire
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: enterprise either becomes an investigation or reveals itself as an
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: exercise in transcript production. A deposition is useful because it
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: freezes a witness's account at a particular moment. Once that
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: account is frozen, investigators can compare it with everything else
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: they know. They can identify contradictions between witnesses. They can
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: identify contradictions between testimony and documents. They can identify places
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: where the witness professed not to remember something that contemporaneous
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: materials may show was central to his or her responsibilities.
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: They can distinguish genuine failure of memory from statements that
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: appear impossible to reconcile with objective evidence. They can bring
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: witnesses back. They can demand supporting documents. And when there's
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: evidence of knowing material falsity, they can put the matter
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: in front of prosecutors rather than allowing the congressional transcript
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: to become the final word. All right, folks, we're gonna
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: wrap up right here. And in the next episode, we're
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: gonna pick up where we left off. All the information
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: description box.