Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Howard Lutnick And His Trip To Congress (Part 8-10) (7/11/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Howard Lutnick And His Trip To Congress (Part 8-10) (7/11/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right
0:06
back to Howard Lutnick and his deposition that he gave
0:11
to Congress miss and sorry, Secretary Lutnik, it was discussed
0:18
at the top of the hour that your testimony today
0:21
is not being videotaped? Did you refuse videotaping of your testimony?
0:27
And to that, Lutnick's lawyer jumps in, the Secretary made
0:31
an agreement to be here voluntarily. It's worked out that
0:34
we would do a transcribed interview. And sorry, So it
0:38
was the majority's decision to do a transcribe video or
0:42
was that a request that you all made Troulger, Any
0:46
conversations that I've had to the representation of my client
0:49
will be privileged. We're here, We're here to voluntarily answer
0:52
your questions. We've been answering your questions redacted. I'm sorry,
0:57
if I could, sorry, Congresswoman, miss Ann, sorry, would you refuse?
1:02
Would you be open to having this on video? Lutnik,
1:05
I'd prefer to just answer questions about my three meaningless
1:08
and inconsequential meetings. Miss Ann sorry, Okay, all right, So
1:14
I know that you've been using the phrase quite a bit,
1:16
so I just want to dive into that a little bit.
1:19
You talked a lot about your wife today and how
1:21
she's really the person who warned you about Jeffrey Epstein,
1:24
and the two made an agreement for you not to,
1:27
you know, be involved with them in any way. Obviously,
1:30
in two thousand and eight, we know that Epstein was
1:32
convicted as a child sex trafficker and an abuser. Then
1:37
in twenty twelve, of course you did go to the
1:39
island with your wife, who was the original person who
1:43
you know, had doubts with together, and you mentioned her
1:47
many times. How'd your wife feel about you going to
1:50
the island in twenty twelve, if she had such deep
1:53
feelings and such deep concerns, Lutni's lawyer jumps in, excuse me, congresswoman,
1:58
you said something that I think really does need to
2:00
be corrected. For the record, you said in two thousand
2:03
and eight, he'd been convicted as a trafficker. That's not accurate,
2:08
and sorry, as a child abuser. Turwilger, that's not accurate,
2:12
and sorry, what was he Turwilger, He was ultimately in
2:16
the state process in Florida was charged with solicitation of
2:19
a miner as a former prosecutor. That is not the
2:22
same thing as child trafficking and sorry, okay, so solicitation
2:28
of a minor by Jeffrey Epstein in two thousand and eight.
2:31
Four years later, mister Lutnik and the entire family go
2:34
to the island. Your wife had deep concerns many years
2:37
before in two thousand and five because of a massage table.
2:40
How did your wife feel in twenty twelve, Lutnick, I
2:44
don't want to accept any premise of the conversation, but
2:47
I'll try to answer it for you. But I don't
2:50
accept the premise, so and sorry, the premise being, Lutnick,
2:54
the premise being your expressing views of my wife that
2:57
you're expressing. So we were uncomfortable with what he said.
3:00
He was gross, and so we discussed that I would
3:03
avoid him and not have any personal or professional relationship
3:06
with him, which I did not with respect to visiting
3:09
having lunch with my family and another family and the
3:12
whole crowd going to his island for lunch. I don't
3:15
remember why we went, but to try to answer your
3:17
question in more detail, I don't remember him registering as
3:21
a sex offender. And if my next door neighbor was
3:23
registered as a sex offender and I knew it, I
3:26
would remember that. And sorry, so you would remember it, presumably,
3:31
lut Nick. Wait, just let me finish, if you don't mind,
3:33
let me finish. And I think if my wife knew
3:36
that her next door neighbor was a registered sex offender,
3:39
then she would remember that, and that both of those
3:41
things would have meant that we wouldn't have gone. So
3:44
while I don't remember why we went, right when I
3:47
think back on it as I sit here today, we
3:50
would have known because if we would have known, I
3:52
wouldn't have gone. So that's my point. And sorry, if
3:56
I could just Lutnik cuts her off. I'm just trying
3:58
to describe to you, so that could be he gets
4:02
cut off now by en. Sorry, but it was a
4:04
prominent case, and so you knew at the bare minimum
4:08
that he had solicited at a minor Lutnick, I don't
4:11
know that, and as I said, and sorry, you don't
4:13
recall it being all over the news media, Lutnick, I don't.
4:18
And sorry. I mean I was a child when it happened,
4:21
and I remember all of it. Lutnick I don't find
4:24
that a little bit he gets cut off by And sorry,
4:27
it's just interesting that you didn't know that your neighbor,
4:29
Jeffrey Epstein, one of the most famous individuals in the
4:32
country even at the time, was all over the news
4:35
for soliciting a minor in two thousand and eight. Lutnick,
4:39
he became famous in twenty nineteen. I didn't know him
4:42
to be famous before this. And sorry, So when did
4:45
you find out? Mayron? Please let the secretary finish? And sorry,
4:49
I actually can ask questions whenever i'd like, Thank you.
4:53
When did you find out that he was a registered
4:54
sex offender? Lutnick? Well, I certainly, along with everybody else
4:58
in the country, I learned a enormous amounts about him
5:01
in twenty nineteen. And sorry, when did you first find
5:04
out Lutnik? First find out what? And sorry that he
5:08
was a registered sex offender or that he had solicited
5:11
a minor? Ludnik, as I said, I don't remember. But
5:15
what I tried to tell you before was that when
5:17
thinking back, it would have been something that I would
5:20
have right if I knew, I would have If I knew,
5:23
I would have been concerned about him being living next door,
5:26
and I wouldn't have gone to the island. So while
5:29
I sit here and I say, you know, twenty years
5:31
ago or however long ago it was, but I can't
5:33
tell you what I remember. I'm just trying to be
5:35
helpful because I've done nothing, and we all know I
5:38
have done absolutely nothing wrong and appropriate. You know, I
5:42
only interacted with this person three times in my whole life,
5:46
as you know, meaningless and inconsequential, never with other people.
5:50
So I'm just saying, just trying to be helpful to
5:53
give you the context to the extent I can, mister Walkinshaw,
5:57
mister secretary. Earlier, mister Khanna asked you about your speculation
6:01
that Epstein was blackmailing people. You responded that you subsequently
6:05
changed your mind about that after hearing from officials in
6:08
the administration. Who did you speak to in the administration
6:12
about Jeffrey Epstein blackmailing or not blackmailing people, Lutnick, It
6:17
was just public comments from administration officials, Walkinshaw. I haven't
6:21
seen those comments from administration officials that he didn't blackmail people, Lutnick.
6:26
That's my best recollection. I learned it from public. He
6:29
gets cut off by Walkinshaw, Okay, you refuse to answer
6:32
a question about any conversation you might have had with
6:35
President Trump about today's testimony. I just want to be clear,
6:39
you will not answer questions about any conversation you have
6:42
with President Trump about today's testimony. Lutnick, Right, But I
6:47
don't want you to think anything one way or the other.
6:49
I'm not even suggesting I have them. I'm just saying
6:52
I won't go there. Question how about any time before
6:56
Trump was elected president or during the four years that
6:59
Joe Biden was president, any conversation with Trump when he
7:02
wasn't president about Jeffrey Epstein Lutnick, No, Walkinshaw, Okay. I'm
7:07
struggling sitting here listening to you try to describe and
7:10
define iye and I as a man. I'm trying to
7:13
figure out what exactly it is you're trying to say.
7:17
I think the American people saw it on video, they
7:19
would be struggling as well. But you said on the podcast,
7:22
my wife and I decided that I'll never be in
7:24
the room with that disgusting person again. You said married
7:28
people will understand that. So your position is that you
7:31
were so turned off by him, he was so gross
7:33
something where it's actually going on in his house, that
7:36
you was a man, Howie Lutnik, did not want to
7:39
be in the room with them alone, but you were
7:41
okay with your wife and family being in a room
7:44
with him. I'm struggling to understand that I'm a man
7:47
too with a wife and a child. If I felt
7:50
someone was so gross, more than me not wanting to
7:52
be in a room with him, I won't want my
7:54
wife and my child to be in a room with them.
7:57
But you're very definitive that it's you, you, you Howard Lutnik,
8:02
that couldn't be in a room with him. Lutnik, I
8:05
had an informal conversation with my wife and that's what
8:07
we discussed. And I would think that most people who
8:10
are married won't understand they would have a conversation with
8:13
their wife that someone says something inappropriate gross that when
8:17
you leave with your wife, she says, you should avoid
8:20
that guy. He's gross, right, and I did so. I
8:23
don't think that like that's kind of inconsequential, which means
8:27
just avoid him, which I did, so I understand. Actually,
8:30
I would think people who are married would understand the
8:33
conversation with their wife when they met someone who was
8:36
inappropriate to say you should avoid him, and I did
8:40
Walkinshaw respectfully, mister secretary. I think most people who are
8:44
married would say we should never be in a room
8:46
with him again. But have you had any conversation with
8:49
anyone in the White House setting aside the President. You're
8:53
refusing to discuss conversations with the President, any conversations with
8:57
anyone who works in the White House about today's inner
9:00
lut Nick No, walk in Shaw, Okay, thank you. We
9:05
can go off the record. They have a recess and
9:07
they come back. Emmer will go back on the record.
9:10
Comer jumps in, Yeah, I just want to say something.
9:13
I've been listening to the press conference the Democrats run
9:16
out to say, and they have said several things that
9:18
aren't true that you said. And Walkinshaw especially, he's in
9:22
a tough race against a transgender candidate, and I think
9:26
he I don't know what he's doing. I don't understand
9:29
what it takes to win a Democrat primary. But it's
9:32
very fortunate or unfortunate, because I think the transcript will
9:35
reflect that they just went out and said it's completely false,
9:39
and that's very disappointing because this is an important investigation.
9:43
We're trying to learn everything we can to see if
9:46
there's any way to hold people who committed crimes accountable
9:48
for terrible things. And I'm doing everything in my ability
9:52
to have a serious, credible investigation. Mister Secretary, you've come
9:56
here voluntarily. We appreciate it, and I just felt like
9:59
I needed to say that on the record, so I'll
10:01
yield back Emmer. Thank you. Question, mister secretary, is there
10:06
something that you want to clarify on the record? Answer? Yeah,
10:09
I just want to make sure everybody understands that I
10:12
have a Department of Commerce lawyer with me at the end,
10:15
and so they said, did I use my commerce resources?
10:18
I had scheduling which talk to people at commerce, and
10:21
I did send my opening statement to my comm's director
10:24
so he can know what I was going to say.
10:26
But that's it. Question. Thank you. I understand that you've
10:30
answered a lot of similar questions over the last two hours,
10:33
so the Majority will continue to ask questions that you
10:36
have not answered. Emmer question. At this time, I would
10:40
like to introduce what will be marked as Majority Exhibit nine.
10:44
And while he's passing it out to the next however,
10:46
many minutes we're going to walk through specific emails that
10:49
were released as part of the Epstein Transparency Act that
10:52
referenced the Secretary, of course in his personal capacity. Lutnix
10:58
lawyer jumps back in. Mister, Emmer, mag just ask a
11:01
quick question. Emmer, yes, sir, question, Sorry to take your time.
11:06
We're still on the record. Emmer, Yeah, Lawyer. I noticed that,
11:11
especially after what the chairman just said. Congressman Walkshaw said
11:15
he had not heard about certain statements that Secretary Lutnik
11:19
talked about administration officials. I just wanted to be clear
11:22
for the record that ranking Member Garcia of this committee
11:26
sent a letter where those things were mentioned, So I
11:29
guess he's not aware of his own ranking members letter. Comer,
11:34
Honesty is not a specialty. Emmer, thank you. All right.
11:38
We're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
11:40
episode we're gonna pick up where we left off. All
11:43
the information that goes with this episode can be found
11:46
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
11:49
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
11:53
going to pick up where we left off with the
11:55
Howard Lutnak deposition with Congress question by emmer So. This
12:01
is an email from the Duben Brest Center to Jeffrey
12:04
Epstein with the subject line a special invitation from Eva
12:07
Anderson Duben secretary Lutnik. I'm aware that you're not a
12:11
part of the email chain. What do you recognize as flyer? Answer?
12:15
Not off hand? No question. Were you involved with the
12:18
Duben breast cancer answer I gave the money. Question and
12:22
how do you know Glenna Eva Dubin? Answer? I met
12:25
them through the hospital. Question did you understand the Dubins
12:28
to have a relationship with mister Epstein? Answer? I learned
12:32
that later after twenty nineteen. Question what did you learn
12:36
as far as a relationship? Answer that Miss Duben had
12:40
her prior existing relationship with mister this individual. Question were
12:44
you involved with selecting individuals that would be invited to
12:47
this event? Answer no question. And for the record, did
12:52
you attend this event? Answer? I don't remember. Question so
12:55
you would not know if Jeffrey Epstein attended the event
12:57
as well, or if Jeffrey Epstein attended this specific event.
13:02
Answer I have told I have been here and answered
13:05
every question of every interaction I've had, so I do
13:08
not recall any other interaction Emmer. At this time, I'd
13:12
like to introduce what will be marked as majority Exhibit
13:14
number ten, and this is Bates marked EFTA two six
13:18
seven one five four five. This email's dated November eleventh,
13:22
twenty fifteen, and was released by the Department of Justice
13:26
as part of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Secretary Lutnik,
13:31
we discuss your emails in the previous hour. Did you
13:34
send this email? Answer? I did not. Question it was
13:38
sent on your behalf? Is that right? Answer? It was
13:40
sent by Matthew Gilbert. Question do you recall this event
13:44
taking place with Secretary Clinton? Answer yes. Question what do
13:48
you recall about the event? Answer a classic fundraising political event.
13:52
Question and what was your relationship with Secretary Clinton at
13:56
the time? Answer? We had a historical relationship. She was
13:59
very helpful to New York and my company after nine
14:02
to eleven. Question did you understand Secretary Clinton to have
14:06
a relationship with mister Epstein? Answer no. Question And as
14:10
far as the event for the record, do you have
14:12
any recollection of interacting with Jeffrey Epstein at this event? Answer?
14:16
I did not and he wasn't there. Question okay. In
14:21
January of twenty seventeen, there was a Brioni flagship store
14:25
opening that mister Epstein was invited to. Do you recall
14:28
this event? Answer no, mister Emmer. At this time, I
14:33
would like to enter what will be marked as majority
14:36
exhibit number eleven and this is Bates marked EFTA two
14:40
two two nine seven two one. I'll direct your attention
14:44
to page two. This is an invitation from John Paulson
14:47
sent to Leslie Groff, who then forwarded it to mister Epstein.
14:51
The subject line of the email reads you JA Wall
14:55
Street Dinner honoring Howard Lutnick, Secretary Lutnick. Do you recall
14:59
this event making place? Answer yeah? Question and why did
15:03
this event take place? Answer? It was a record setting
15:06
fundraiser event for you. JA. Question And the email is
15:12
from John Paulson. Did you direct mister Paulson to invite
15:15
Jeffrey Epstein? Answer no question. And it appears as though
15:19
mister Epstein did in fact donate. Did you solicit that donation?
15:23
Answer no question. Did you thank mister Epstein for that
15:27
donation for the event? Answer no question. And as far
15:31
as the event itself, presumably you attended the event. Did
15:35
you see mister Epstein or interact with mister Epstein at
15:37
this event. Answer no. Question, Secretary Lutnik, you mentioned traveling
15:43
with your kids in a previous hour. Did you have
15:46
a private nanny? Answer sure. Question, And as we've seen
15:50
from the Epstein files that have been released, it appears
15:53
that in nanny that was in your employee had sent
15:56
a resume to mister Epstein. Do you know anything about that? Answer?
16:00
I have no knowledge about it at all. Question and
16:02
for the record, you never encouraged any of the nannies
16:06
that were under your employment to reach out for mister
16:08
Epstein in any respect. Answer that's correct, none, mister spector. Question,
16:15
are you aware of any employee of yours later working
16:18
for Jeffrey Epstein? Answer no, no employee of mine, I
16:21
don't think ever work for Jeffrey Epstein. Answer are you
16:25
aware of any employee of Jeffrey Epstein ever later working
16:28
for you? Answer no, mister Emmer. I now would like
16:33
to introduce what will be marked as Exhibit twelve and thirteen,
16:37
and as they're being handed out. Exhibit twelve is batesmarked
16:40
EFTA one eight six eight six two six. Exhibit thirteen
16:45
is batesmarked EFTA two one eight four two nine and
16:49
I'll give you a chance to review the exhibits and
16:52
notes that it appears as though you were not a
16:55
recipient of those emails. Turwolger, the lawyer for Lutnik, jumps in.
17:01
Are we done with the prior exhibit, mister Emmer? Emmer, yes, sir,
17:06
Secretary Lutnik. Oh, I should just make clear I don't
17:09
know if like some gardener ever worked for you, know,
17:11
like I wouldn't possibly know that one way or the other. Specter.
17:15
We're only asking you to testify to the best of
17:17
your knowledge and recollection. Lutnick. Okay, I know, well you
17:22
had a preamble in the beginning, and I'm just trying
17:25
to be responsive. Emmer question. Thank you, so during the
17:29
previous hour we talked about interactions that you had in
17:31
April of twenty eleven. I just want to clarify for
17:35
the record, these two exhibits imply that there is a
17:38
meeting on May first. Would it be your impression that
17:42
is the meeting related to the scaffolding answer? It is
17:45
so this this is incorrect. I did not have drinks question. Okay,
17:49
thank you, mister Grant. Secretary Lutnik. You've answered questions regarding
17:53
mister Epstein and miss Maxwell a numerous amount of times
17:57
at this point, across different hearings around Congress and here today.
18:01
Is there anything that hasn't been asked of you that
18:04
you think that we should know as part of the investigation, Lutnick, No, Emma,
18:09
thank you. Will go off record redacted. We can go
18:12
back on record. Question Secretary Lutnik, a few more questions.
18:17
Like I said earlier, if it's repetitive or it's been
18:20
asked and answered, I'm going to try to avoid it.
18:22
I can't promise I'm going to succeed in every case,
18:24
but I'm going to try. With respect to the tour
18:27
of the home that we discussed, just a few general
18:30
questions about what you recall. Did you see any women
18:33
in Epstein's home on that tour other than your wife? Answer?
18:37
You're talking about which question two thousand and five? Answer Lutnick,
18:42
you're talking about his townhouse in New York. Question, Yeah,
18:45
the tour of Epstein's house in New York that you
18:47
received in two thousand and five. Answer so his residence. Okay,
18:51
So what's the question you'd like? Question? Did you see
18:54
any woman or women in the home other than your wife?
18:57
Answer no question. Did you see any foe or other
19:00
images that were sexual or sexually suggestive? Answer no question.
19:06
Did you see any cameras or other recording device answer
19:09
no question. Apart from the massage table and candles, did
19:13
you see anything that raised a concern on your part
19:15
about mister Epstein? Answer no question. Did you see anything
19:19
in the home that was related to President Trump? Answer no?
19:23
Always about Trump, buffung gole Trump. Okay, enough already. Question.
19:28
At some point in that New York Post, when you
19:31
were discussing the concept of blackmail, you add something to
19:34
the effect of that's how Epstein had money. Just wanted
19:37
to ask did you have any direct or indirect knowledge
19:40
of Epstein making any kind of money through blackmail? Answer no,
19:43
I was just speculating. Question. Did you then or now
19:47
have any knowledge regarding the relationship between Epstein and Less Wexner?
19:52
Answer what's the question again? Sorry? Well, maybe if the
19:55
Republicans went and talked to Wexner when they had them
19:58
on the dock, they would have found out. But the
20:00
they didn't do that, did they? Oh, that's right. Question.
20:04
Did you, either back then or sitting here now, have
20:07
any knowledge of that relationship between Epstein and Westerner. Answer
20:12
at some point I came to learn that they were friends.
20:14
Question did you ever hear directly or indirectly that black
20:18
mail may have had any component of their relationship? Answer?
20:22
I can't remember one way or the other. I remember
20:24
something about their relationship ended badly, but I don't have
20:27
any particular relation, particular knowledge. Question do you recall any
20:32
more detail other than that? Answer no. Question Do you
20:35
have any knowledge regarding the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and
20:39
Leon Black? Answer what's the question again? Question do you have,
20:44
either back then or sitting here today, any knowledge regarding
20:47
the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Leon Black? Answer no,
20:52
other than I think they had a relationship of some form.
20:55
Question is that based on public reporting as far as
20:58
you know, or any kind of personal knowledge? Answer? I
21:01
don't have any personal knowledge. Question have you ever heard
21:05
directly or indirectly that blackmail may have had any role
21:08
in the relationship between Epstein and Leon Black? Answer no
21:12
particular knowledge, No question. Okay. The part of the New
21:16
York Post interview, there was a part that was related
21:19
to the existence of videos and videos possibly being traded
21:22
in exchange for mister Epstein's plead deal. I just wanted
21:25
to clarify, did you have any knowledge of such a
21:28
trade occurring? The lawyer Tellwiger jumps in, mister adacted, Can
21:34
I just ask a question? You say the New York
21:36
Post interview, You mean the Podforce one podcast? Correct answer?
21:40
I do. Indeed, Lutnick, would you mind repeating the question question? Sure?
21:44
Of course. There was a part towards the back of
21:47
the end of the podcast, the discussion about Epstein. There
21:50
was a discussion about the possible existence of videos of
21:53
powerful men getting massages, and there might be something compromising
21:57
on those videos. I think you had discussed the possibility that,
22:01
if those videos existed, maybe mister Epstein had traded them
22:04
to the Department of Justice in exchange for a lenient
22:07
plea deal. I just wanted to ask whether you thought
22:10
that was based on any personal knowledge of yours or
22:13
was that just a theoretical thought. Answer. I was just
22:16
speculating for the podcast. This guy's a cabinet member and
22:20
he's out here speculating on a podcast. Okay, question a
22:25
few general questions. They're similar to some that you've answered,
22:28
but I think phrased slightly differently. Prior to becoming or
22:31
at becoming public knowledge, did you ever have direct or
22:34
indirect knowledge of the sexual abuse that Jeffrey Epstein was
22:38
committing against miners and young women? Answer no question. Prior
22:43
to becoming public knowledge? Did you ever have direct or
22:46
indirect knowledge of the sexual abuse that Klaine Maxwell was
22:49
committing and facilitating against miners and young women? Answer no question.
22:55
Have you ever engaged in sexual activity with a person
22:58
introduced to you by Jeffreyepps Orglen Maxwell? Answer no question.
23:04
Have you ever received a massage from a person introduced
23:07
to you by Jeffrey Epstein or Glene Maxwell? Answer no question, Okay.
23:12
My colleague has a few questions related to Epstein's various properties.
23:17
Question So, Secretary Lutnik, you answered questions previously about a
23:21
number of Epstein's properties, but we wanted to cover a
23:25
few that had not been raised yet. Specifically, so, did
23:28
you ever visit Epstein's home in New Aubanny, Ohio? Answer
23:32
no question. And what about any of the apartments that
23:35
he rented in London? Answer no question, okay. And then
23:39
a few general questions about his properties in general, whether
23:42
or not they're the ones that you personally visited. Did
23:45
you ever hear any rumors or allegations of miners visiting
23:48
Epstein at any of his properties before they became public reporting?
23:52
Answer no question, okay. Did you ever see or hear
23:56
of large numbers of women visiting Epstein's New York home
23:59
and no question? Or any other property? Answer no question, okay.
24:04
And do you recall hearing about any other prominent figure
24:07
include individuals visiting any of Epstein's home Turwolger, could you
24:12
be a little more specific about which homes timeframe what
24:15
you mean by prominent figure? Sure? I think prominent figure
24:19
can include politician, well known, wealthy individual, celebrities generally, and
24:24
other than that what you have read through public reporting.
24:28
Since did you have any personal knowledge of Epstein hosting
24:32
we can go property by property that's easier hosting any
24:35
such individuals at his New York home? Answer no, Palm
24:38
Beach answer no question. New Mexico answer no question, Paris
24:44
answer no question, any other property answer no question, okay.
24:50
Or flying on his planes any of those plans people
24:53
flying on his planes are taking other of his the
24:56
modes of transportation that he owned, answer no question, okay, Hey,
25:01
answer nothing? Then whatever's public question and other than public reporting,
25:06
do you recall hearing anything about Epstein throwing parties at
25:08
any of his homes? Answer? No question, Okay, thank you.
25:13
All right. We're going to wrap up right here, and
25:15
in the next episode we're going to pick up where
25:17
we left off. All the information that goes with this
25:20
episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
25:24
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
25:28
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
25:30
off with Howard Lutnik deposition in front of Congress. Question.
25:35
I'm going to work through the chronology of some of
25:37
these subsequent interactions between yourself and mister Epstein, some of
25:42
which has been discussed today, some of which has not,
25:45
but I'll try to work through it efficiently. A starting
25:48
question is there was a file in the DOJ release
25:51
suggesting that in January of two thousand and six a
25:54
driver named Arnold garg Wilo was possibly coming to work
25:58
for you, or least was interviewing and had put Epstein
26:02
down as a reference. Do you, sitting here today have
26:05
any knowledge or recollection of that? Answer? No question. In
26:09
July of two thousand and six, as we discussed mister
26:12
Epstein was arrested in Florida on charges of soliciting prostitution
26:16
as far as you recall, were you aware of that
26:19
arrest at the time? Answer no question. Did you ever
26:22
discuss the arrest with mister Epstein? Answer no question. Did
26:26
you ever discuss the arrest with other individuals at the time?
26:29
Answer no question. In June of two thousand and eight,
26:33
mister Epstein pled guilty to stay charges of soliciting prostitution
26:37
and soliciting a minor for prostitution. He was sentenced eighteen
26:41
months in prison, of which he served thirteen months, most
26:45
of which was on work release program. Were you aware
26:48
of mister Epstein's plea deal at the time that's June
26:51
of two thousand and eight. Answer, as I sit here today,
26:54
I don't remember. Question. Do you ever recall discussing the
26:57
plea with Epstein? Answer I did not. Question. Do you
27:01
recall discussing the plea with other individuals at the time?
27:04
Answer not that I recall. No question. Do you recall
27:08
when you first became aware that mister Epstein's plea involved
27:11
a minor? Answer not that I recall. No question. Do
27:15
you ever recall discussing mister Epstein's work release program with him. Answer,
27:19
no question. I'm going to introduce an exhibit. It'll be
27:23
a minority be I think it's possibly you've already seen
27:27
it today, so I apologize for that. So this email
27:30
is from October of two thousand and nine, and we
27:33
can see that somebody emails Epstein saying that rich Barnett,
27:36
who we understand was an Epstein employee, said that one
27:39
of your employees approached Barnett asking for Epstein's number because
27:43
of you, mister Lutnik wanted to call or speak with Epstein.
27:48
What did you want to speak with Epstein about? Answer?
27:50
I have no recollection of this question, no recollection at all.
27:54
Answer no question sitting here today. Any theories or any
27:59
memory that might possibly account for the outreach. Answer may
28:03
have been construction related, but I shouldn't speculate. I don't
28:06
remember question. I will introduce minority exhibit C. I'll give
28:11
you a moment to look it over. So this is
28:13
an email chain dated March twenty fourth, twenty eleven. The
28:16
subject is Howard Lunik, and it seems from leslie Grov's email,
28:21
leslie Grof says that Howard Lutnik is on an airplane
28:24
headed overseas. His office would like to know if you'd
28:28
like to set up a call while he's away, or
28:30
if you prefer to speak with him on Monday, April fourth,
28:32
when he's back. Epstein received that email and replied that
28:36
the fourth of April was okay. Do you recall what
28:39
the context for this call being set up? Answer? I
28:43
think this is in the context resulting in the interaction
28:45
I had with him at the which I discussed with
28:48
you earlier, which was about scaffolding. So I think this
28:51
leads to that interaction. Does anyone really believe that these
28:54
two dudes were talking about scaffolding? I hate to interject here,
28:58
but man, this reads like a bunch of bs. Question okay,
29:04
and I'll introduce minority Exhibit D, which is on a
29:06
similar interaction. I can go right to you next time.
29:09
So this is an email chain starting on April fourth,
29:12
which is the day in the previous exhibit that looked
29:15
like it was set for you and Epstein to have
29:17
a call. This email chain here starts with Leslie rob saying,
29:21
Howard Lutnick returns your call. Mister Epstein says, call this tomorrow,
29:26
and the answer to that is will do so weary
29:30
those two exhibits together, as there was a call set
29:33
up for April fourth, mister Epstein called you, you returned
29:37
his call. Mister Epstein planned to call you back the
29:40
next day on April fifth. Is that reading of those
29:43
exhibits correct as far as you can remember? Answer? My
29:47
understanding is he had something to tell me his office call,
29:50
tried to arrange a call, and we had difficulty connecting
29:53
until ultimately he told me to my best recollection about
29:56
scaffolding on May first. So this was all just not
30:00
being able to connect before that time, which ultimately led
30:05
to him telling me about my best recollection about scaffolding
30:08
on May first. So this was all just not being
30:11
able to connect before that time, which ultimately led to
30:13
that question. And do you remember did the two of
30:16
you ever actually speak on the phone in this back
30:19
and forth? Answer? We did not, or I wouldn't have
30:23
needed to listen to him tell me about scaffolding in person.
30:26
He could have told me on the phone. Question, I'll
30:29
introduce minority exhibit ee. I'll give you a moment to
30:32
look that over. The lawyer jumps in again. Kur Wilger,
30:36
Mister addacted answer yeah, Ur Wilger, I believe there are
30:41
several documents in between. It's your interview. You get to
30:44
do it however you want. Obviously, I would note though,
30:47
that for the record, there are several other of the
30:50
release files that show a back and forth between Epstein
30:53
and the staff that revealed that there was never communication
30:56
between Howard Lutnik. I'm happy to give you the Bates
30:59
numbers after the fact redact. Did I appreciate we're aware
31:03
of that paper that you're describing and just looking to
31:06
save you a little paper questions? So you've had a
31:09
chance to look this over. It's an email dated April
31:12
twenty seventh, twenty eleven. It appears to be either from
31:16
or from and to Leslie Groff, who was mister Epstein's assistant,
31:19
and it looks like it lays out a schedule for
31:21
May first, Sunday, May first, and I think we understand,
31:25
based on earlier testimony today that that was the day
31:29
that you went over to mister Epstein's house for the
31:31
scaffolding discussion. I just had some pretty targeted questions. One,
31:36
did I hear correctly your testimony that the word drinks
31:39
is not accurate? Here? Is that right. Answer, that's right.
31:42
Question Okay, so the best of your recollection. Did you
31:45
and mister Epstein just sort of sit there, no refreshments,
31:48
have your conversation about scaffolding and that was it? Answer right,
31:52
that's my best recollection. I was in his foyer with
31:55
my dog. Question do you recall seeing any other folks
31:59
on this schedule while you were there? So Woody Allen
32:02
is listed next to a schedule Sun Yee and some
32:05
other folks. Do you recall seeing any other individual or
32:08
a prominent individual during your visit? Answer I did not
32:12
see them, and I would definitely remember seeing meeting Woody
32:15
Allen and Soon Ye if I did so. I did
32:18
not see anyone. Question did you see any women during
32:21
your visit who looked like they were under the age
32:24
of eighteen? Answer no question. How about any women who
32:28
look like they may have been under the age of
32:30
twenty five? Answer no question. Did you see any images
32:33
during your visit that were either nude or sexual in nature?
32:37
Answer no, I was in his foyer. Question did you
32:40
notice any video cameras in the foyer? Answer no question.
32:44
Did you see anything at all during your visit that
32:47
was suggestive of sexual abuse or was otherwise sexual in nature.
32:51
Answer say that again. Question did you see anything at
32:54
all during your visit that was suggestive of sexual abuse
32:58
or was sexual in nature at all? Answer? No. Question.
33:02
Do you recall where you were aware at this point
33:05
that mister Epstein had pled guilty to sex crimes involving
33:07
solicitation of a miner? Answer I can't remember, but I
33:11
don't think so. Question. I'm going to move to your
33:14
visit to the island in December of twenty twelve and
33:17
just ask a few questions that I don't think have
33:19
been asked yet about that visit. To the best of
33:22
your recollection, When you visited mister Epstein's island in December
33:25
of twenty twelve, did you know at that point that
33:28
mister Epstein had been convicted where I've pled guilty to
33:31
crimes involving solicitation of a minor? Answer? I don't remember,
33:36
but I don't think so. No question. Do you recall
33:39
having any concerns about visiting Epstein's island? You describe the
33:43
unsettling nature of how the visit got started mister Epstein
33:47
knowing your travel plans. Do you recall feeling unsettled from
33:50
the get go? Whether you had concerns about making the visit. Answer,
33:55
I just don't remember the discussion leading up to the visit.
33:58
Question do you remember the unsettling fielding related to the
34:00
initial outreach? Answer? I don't know that I knew that,
34:04
so it's unsettling as they see it now. I don't
34:06
know that I knew that then. Question in other words,
34:09
can you just elaborate on that a little bit? You
34:12
don't know what you knew what exactly? Would then? Answer?
34:17
I do not know that at that time, I knew
34:19
that they had learned of my travel plans and started
34:21
to pursue me. I don't know that I knew that
34:24
at that time? Question did you know that the invitation
34:28
came from Epstein's side, whether that's mister Epstein personally or
34:31
his staff. Answer? I must have, Well, I don't remember.
34:35
I must have, And how that came to be, I
34:37
don't know, but it must have because it would have
34:40
never have come from us. Question would it be logical
34:44
to say that it was very likely your impression that
34:46
the invitation came from Epstein or his staff, because it
34:49
would be very strange for you to spontaneously invite yourself
34:52
to Epstein's island. Answer that's right. Question Okay, do you
34:56
recall at the time being confused at all about how
34:58
mister Epstein would have about your travel plans? Answer I
35:03
just can't remember anything about it. Questions so that unsettled,
35:06
feeling that it's more in the present as you read
35:09
the emails today. Answer right. Question. Do you recall visiting
35:14
or your visit to mister Epstein's island seeking any or
35:16
seeing any women who looked like they were under the
35:19
age of eighteen other than the folks who were part
35:21
of your party? Answer no question. How about any women
35:26
who looked like they were under the age of twenty five?
35:28
Answer no question. Did you see any images that were nude,
35:31
sexual or sexually suggestive? Answer no question. Did you notice
35:36
any video cameras? Answer not that I can recall. No question.
35:41
Did you see anything that you can recall now that
35:43
stood out to you as unusual or concerning? Answer no question.
35:49
There are a few follow ups in the DOJ files
35:52
in the four to five weeks after your visit to
35:54
the island. I can introduce them, but I don't think
35:57
I need to. Where mister Epstein's assistant would send your
36:00
staff various articles, some of them related to gaming legislation
36:03
in the Virgin Islands or the gaming industry in Antigua.
36:07
Do you recall receiving through your staff indirectly? Do you
36:11
receiving any outreach of that nature? Answer no. Question. Do
36:16
you recall during your visit to the island in December
36:19
of twenty twelve discussing with mister Epstein or anyone else
36:24
topics related to gaming legislation or the gaming industry? Answer no. Question.
36:29
You may have been asked this, I'm sorry if you were.
36:31
What's your recollection of what we discussed during that visit?
36:35
Answer as I recall basically, it's inconsequential, meaning nothing. Question
36:40
but do you have any recollection of specifically what was discussed? Answer?
36:45
I don't think anything was discussed. I was with I
36:47
was with the crowd of my wife, my friends, another couple,
36:50
and lots of children. It wasn't anything. Question it could
36:54
have been the weather. I'm just asking whether you have
36:56
any memory of what was discussed. Answer no, I have
36:59
no recollection of anything being discussed. Question Okay, well we
37:03
can agree that very likely something was discussed. In other words,
37:08
you and the group didn't sit there in silence as
37:09
far as you remember. Answer, well, discussed, I mean, if
37:12
you said chitchat, I'd go with that. Discuss sounds like
37:15
there was a discussion, which I don't think there was.
37:18
Question No, I mean it. Answer, I would say chitchat
37:21
inconsequential chitchat I'm sure was I would agree with you
37:25
was likely to have occurred. Question I meant in the
37:31
literal sense, in other words, words being spoken in a conversation.
37:35
Answer for sure. Question Okay, do you have any recollection
37:38
of what the nature of that discussion was? Answer? No, question.
37:42
Give me a moment. I'm going to show you something
37:44
that the majority has already introduced, and I'm trying to
37:47
find it, so I don't have to introduce a second copy.
37:51
Turwilger jumps in which one was it? I might have
37:53
it right here redacted the UJA email. If you've got it, Turwilger, Yeah,
37:59
let me check redacted number eleven Majority Exhibit eleven. Urwilger, Yeah,
38:04
let me just make sure that's the right. One question.
38:07
There are some language in the email for mister Paulson
38:10
in the second paragraph of the email, so I think
38:12
it's going to be right over there. It starts with
38:15
as Chairman of the Wall Street Division, and I'll just
38:17
read the sentence out loud. As chairman of the Wall
38:20
Street Division, I want to make sure that as a
38:22
close friend of the Lutnix, you're aware of the event
38:25
and have the opportunity to support them. That's the end
38:28
of the sentence. We know that this email, I'm sure
38:31
went to a number of people, one of which was
38:33
mister Epstein's assistant. Would you, at this point in twenty
38:36
seventeen have characterized mister Epstein as a close friend of
38:40
you or your family? Answer no question. Do you have
38:44
any recollection of how that list was formed? Answer no question.
38:48
Is it, as far as you can recall, possible that
38:51
you or your staff provided an initial list to mister Paulson,
38:54
because it would seem unlikely that mister Paulson would come
38:57
up with his own list of what he understands to
38:59
be network. Answer, well, I have no knowledge of how
39:03
he came up with the list. Question. There was a
39:05
discussion of the adfin deal, which we understand to be
39:08
an agreement that was initially entered into You know, I'll
39:11
just introduce that exhibit, because I don't think it's been introduced,
39:14
So let's do that. All right, Tellwerger, thank you, sir. Question.
39:21
I'll give you a moment to look it over. You
39:23
don't need to read every word. The cover page and
39:25
the signatory pages are probably the focus of the questions. Answer, okay, question,
39:31
so this is from its title page, appears to be
39:33
a stock purchase agreement or a series a preferred stock
39:36
purchase agreement for a company named Adfin Solutions, dated December
39:41
twenty eight, twenty twelve. At the back of the document
39:45
bates number ending nine to five eight zero and nine
39:47
five eight one, we find mister Epstein as well as
39:50
yourself as signatories to the agreement when this agreement was
39:54
signed in December of twenty twelve. Did you know that
39:56
mister Epstein was a signatory to the agreement? Answer no,
40:02
Terwilger jumps in before we go forward, I've looked at
40:04
all the documents related to Adfinn and it has been
40:07
widely reported, erroneously over and over that the documents were
40:11
executed in December twenty eighth of twenty twelve. I believe
40:15
if you look into the files, and we don't have
40:17
time to do that today, but I can give you
40:20
and your team the bates numbers you'll see that there
40:22
were multiple executions that happen by different parties. So I
40:25
would prefer to you today that there are documents within
40:29
the DOJ released Epstein files that show that when Cantor
40:32
Fitzgerald Venture Capital signed the documents it was it was
40:36
much later. Give me one second, I'll give you the
40:38
date it would have been in twenty thirteen in spring.
40:43
I'm happy to get with your team afterwards and show
40:45
you this, but that's been widely I think misrepresented redacted.
40:49
I appreciate that. Thank you. Question. So, when you and
40:52
your capacity as president signed the document, let's say, in
40:55
the spring of twenty thirteen, did you know that whether
40:58
mister Epstein was also signatory to the agreement? Answer no,
41:02
and you should know I don't think I heard about
41:04
this investment until twenty thirteen. I think the pitch was
41:09
made to me in May of twenty thirteen from the document,
41:12
so it was in December. Question great, at the time
41:15
that you received the pitch ended up signing the agreement,
41:19
did you at that point know whether Epstein was also
41:21
an investor or also a signatory to the agreement? Answer no.
41:25
Question at what point did you learn that mister Epstein
41:28
had been a signatory to this agreement. Answer in this
41:31
process question and preparation for the interview? Answer right and
41:36
well and after the Epstein file showed he was an
41:38
investor otherwise I didn't know. Question And the email chain
41:43
that we looked at earlier from twenty eighteen where Epstein
41:45
was asking you about the prospects for adfin and you
41:48
talked about this is the year to generate revenue that exchange.
41:52
You did not know during that exchange that Epstein was
41:54
an investor in ADFIN. Answer I do not remember that
41:58
I knew that. No question, okay, And as far as
42:01
you can recall, were there any other communications that you
42:04
and Epstein had with respect to Adfinn that have not
42:07
been discussed here today? Answer no question. Did you have
42:11
any other business or financial dealings with Jeffrey Epstein? Answer
42:15
no question. To the best of your knowledge, did any
42:18
of your assets or any of kennter Fitzgerald's assets ever
42:21
help finance any of Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell's crimes?
42:25
Answer no question. And that question applies to any alleged
42:29
sexual as well as financial crimes. Still no answer. No.
42:34
Turwiger jumps in again. Redacted. My apologies. I should have
42:38
said this earlier. You made a statement, and I just
42:40
wanted to make sure it's clear for the record. If
42:43
you'd like to ask the Secretary of follow up question
42:45
you asked, did you have any other business dealings with Epstein?
42:49
I think it's I'm not accusing you of mischaracterization. I
42:52
just want to make sure it's clear for the record.
42:55
I do not consider this business dealing with mister Epstein,
42:58
so there cannot be another question, regardless of how one
43:01
characterizes Adfin. I think the question and I think the
43:04
answers are clear. There are no business dealings other than
43:08
Adfin that, to your knowledge you were Cantor Fitzgerald had
43:11
with Jeffrey Epstein. Is that correct answer? Yes, to the
43:14
best of my recollection. Yeah. Question, and as far as
43:17
we can tell from the public record, the exchange is
43:19
about Adfinn and the Pierre. This is twenty eighteen. Those
43:22
are the last known communications that we have between yourself
43:26
and mister Epstein. As far as I can tell, when
43:31
was the last time that you communicated with Epstein directly
43:33
or indirectly? Answer the twenty eighteen emails that I've seen,
43:38
the one exchange is the only email exchange that I
43:40
have learned about in the process, and I don't recall
43:43
any other. Question and that includes not recalling any others
43:47
that might be indirectly through an assistant or staff member.
43:50
Still the same answer, answer, I wouldn't have I wouldn't
43:53
have known of them other than through the process. Where
43:56
you've you know, had emails? I don't know. Maybe I
43:59
don't engage an other pece people's emails. Question and as
44:02
to any communication with Layne Maxwell, you described meeting miss
44:06
Maxwell at an event. I'm sorry, I don't recall approximately
44:09
when and where was that event? Answer? Rockefeller Institute. I
44:13
think that's the name, but I'm not certain. It's a
44:16
research institution in New York science and it was fundraising
44:19
event for them. Question and what do you recall about
44:22
your interaction with miss Maxwell at that event? Answer? Nonconsequential,
44:27
meaning just I met her, that would be it. Question
44:30
do your a call who introduced you? If anyone? Answer?
44:33
My best recollection was she was a guest of Leon Black.
44:36
Question do you or did you have a personal or
44:39
professional relationship with mister Black? Answer? I have what I
44:43
would describe as a friendly intermitting a relationship with mister Black.
44:47
Question do you recall I know inconsequential was the word
44:50
that you used, But what do you remember specifically about
44:53
what was said with miss Maxwell? Did she say, hey,
44:56
it's great to meet you, I know you live next
44:58
door to Jeffrey or anything of that. Answer? I have
45:01
no recollection of the word spoken. Question did you have
45:04
any understanding of why mister Black and miss Maxwell as
45:08
was it a guest or just the same time as her? Answer? Actually,
45:13
I don't know question? And what year was that event?
45:16
Lut make, I don't know question. There's been widespread public
45:19
reporting that was also discussed earlier, the photograph from your
45:23
visit to mister Epstein's island, the reporting that the photograph
45:26
was initially included in a DOJ release and then it
45:29
came down, and then it was put back up. My
45:32
question to you is, have you had any direct or
45:34
indirect communication with any administration official regarding putting up, taking down,
45:39
releasing any particular files from the DOJ Epstein database? Answer
45:44
no question. Have you had any direct or indirect communication
45:48
with any administration official about the redaction of any file
45:52
included in the DOJ database? Answer no question. Have you
45:56
had any director in direct communication with any administration official
46:00
regarding the DOJ's process for reviewing and releasing files under
46:04
the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Answer no question. Have you
46:09
had any conversation of any kind regarding the contents of
46:12
the files that DOJ reviewed pursuant to the Epstein Files
46:16
Transparency Act? Answer no question. Do you have any knowledge
46:20
other than public sources of how the Department of Justice
46:23
settled on a timeline for releasing files under the Epstein
46:26
Files Transparency Act? Answer no question. Do you have any
46:31
knowledge other than public sources of how many files the
46:34
Department of Justice has reviewed but withheld under the Epstein
46:37
Files Transparency Act. Answer no question. I'm going to ask
46:42
a few questions. We're getting to the end here. I'm
46:45
going to ask you a few questions about President Trump.
46:47
Some versions of them you may have been asked, others
46:50
you have not. The firstly, how long have you known
46:53
President Trump? Answer more than thirty years. Question how did
46:57
you urgently meet Answer I don't remember. Did you ever
47:00
have a conversation with Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell about
47:03
President Trump? Answer no question. At any time when President
47:08
Trump was a private citizen, were you president for a
47:10
conversation about Jeffrey Epstein or Glayne Maxwell where Trump was
47:14
then Donald Trump was also present for in other words,
47:17
were you ever in his company where Epstein or Maxwell
47:20
were discussed? Answer? No question. At any time when President
47:24
Trump was president, did you have a conversation with him
47:27
about Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell, tor Wolger, as we
47:31
talked about before, we're not going to answer questions under
47:34
executive privilege, or we're here to answer your questions, We're
47:38
not going to violate executive privilege question And that was
47:41
a clarification from me whether it was just wanting to
47:44
answer or whether it was an executive privilege assertion. The
47:48
other lawyer jumps in, Mayron, there's a process for you
47:51
to go through if you'd like to see that information,
47:54
and I'm happy to talk with you afterwards if that's
47:56
something you want to pursue. Question. Yeah, the question here
48:01
is whether it's not an executive privilege. But I understand
48:03
that the question is not being answered. I got that,
48:06
but I'm just asking whether it's an executive privilege basis
48:10
or choosing not to answer the question, Turwilger, I have
48:14
not gone through the formal process to do that. Let
48:16
me rephrase my objection. I think it's been asked and answered.
48:20
Question Apart from public reporting, do you have any direct
48:23
or indirect knowledge of the nature of the relationship between
48:26
Epstein and Donald Trump? Answer no. Apart from republic reporting,
48:30
do you have any direct or indirect knowledge of whether
48:33
President Trump was ever aware of Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn
48:36
Maxwell's crimes prior to the crimes becoming public? Answer no.
48:41
Question to your knowledge, were your connection to Jeffrey Epstein
48:45
or any interaction that you had with Jeffrey Epstein ever
48:49
discussed or examined in the course of your nomination or
48:52
vetting process for your current position? Answer please ask me again.
48:56
Question to your knowledge, where your interactions with Jeffrey Epstein
49:00
ever discussed or examined in the course of your nomination
49:03
or a vetting process for your current position? Answer? I
49:06
don't remember that. No question, You have no recollection of
49:10
that happening? Is that correct? Answer? Right? Question. Were you
49:13
ever questioned by any law enforcement agency in connection with
49:16
an investigation related to Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell? Answer no.
49:21
Question Okay, let me ask it a different way. Do
49:24
you know whether that person whose resume was sent to
49:27
mister Epstein's staff was one of the nannies who accompanied
49:30
your family on your visit to his island in December
49:33
of twenty twelve. Let me add exhibit number G Turwilger.
49:42
Thank you. Question. I'll give you a second to look
49:44
that one over so you can see here this appears
49:46
to be a resume of an individual. That individual's name
49:50
is in the subject line. In the body this is
49:52
from Richard Kahn, who was on Epstein's staff, and the
49:55
body it's as attached as a resume of Lutnik nanny
49:58
to your recollection. In the subject line, is that the
50:02
nanny who accompanied you on the trip to mister Epstein's island. Answer,
50:06
I don't know. Question do you possess any communication, documents
50:09
or other material related to Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell
50:13
that are not already publicly available? Answer? Do I possess no? Redacted? Question?
50:19
And then I think we had a few more questions
50:20
from a member, right and Zari, I'm fine. Question Okay,
50:25
Then I will ask you, is there anything else that
50:27
you would like to share with the committee before we
50:29
go off record? Answer? Just a small thing, which is
50:33
that I don't grow a beard until after mister this
50:35
individual Epstein was dead, so that mascat you showed me
50:39
I never had a beard before that question. I got
50:42
it answer and I never had to go to either.
50:44
So I just wanted to say that these things are
50:46
not possibly about me redacted. Those are clear on the transcript.
50:50
Thank you. We will go off record. Well, I have
50:53
to say now that we've taken a look at the
50:55
transcript for ourselves, I don't believe a word how aer
50:59
Lutnik is. So we're gonna wrap this one up right here,
51:02
but you better believe there's gonna be a post mortem
51:05
for this interview we had with Congress. All the information
51:09
that goes with this episode can be found in the
51:12
description box.