Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / James Comer And The Letter Sent To Leon Black (Part 2)

Transcript

James Comer And The Letter Sent To Leon Black (Part 2) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: and finish off the letter that was sent by Congress
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: to Leon Black, Part 5. Non-disclosure agreements are within the
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: scope of investigation. Your letter argues that majority staff never
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: indicated to Mr. Black counsel that confidential and legally binding
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: agreements would be a subject covered in the interview. To reiterate,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: The committee did not agree to any limitations on scope
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: for the interview and had previously inquired of several witnesses
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: in this investigation about confidential and legally binding agreements. The
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: committee asked questions about what it deemed to be relevant
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: to its investigation, which included questions about non-disclosure agreements signed
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: by your client with women the committee has reason to
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: believe to be connected to Mr. Epstein, as was done
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: with other voluntary witnesses in this investigation whose interview transcripts
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: are publicly available. Similarly, your assertion that majority staff then
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: began asking questions that fell outside what Mr. Black's counsel
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: understood to be a reasonable interpretation of the committee-stated legislative
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: purpose is misguided. It's the committee that determines the scope
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: of its inquiry, not the witness. Moreover, the committee asked
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: appropriate questions about the number of nondisclosure agreements to which
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: your client was a party. whether there were other parties
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: to the agreements, whether Mr. Epstein was involved in any
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: such agreement, and whether your client knew about other individuals
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: that possessed similar agreements that related to Mr. Epstein, the
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: reason for the committee's questions on this topic are twofold. First, Mr.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Epstein and his associates used a variety of tools to
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: control his victims and other individuals in his orbit. The
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: committee is aware that Mr. Epstein use non-disclosure agreements to
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: silence his associates, some of whom have since come forward
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: as victims and survivors of his abuse. To conduct a
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: complete and thorough investigation, the committee will pursue all relevant
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: avenues of inquiry. The committee is also aware of the
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: existence of at least one non-disclosure agreement between your client
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: and a woman who is connected to Mr. Epstein. The
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: pursuit of this investigative pathway and relevant facts surrounding it
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: is necessary to determine whether the nature and extent to
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: which Mr. Epstein and his associates use these confidential agreements,
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: which in turn will help determine whether legislation is necessary,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: and if so, how to craft such legislation to prevent
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: such activity from reoccurring. Second, the Committee's questions related to
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: non-disclosure agreements more broadly are pertinent to the Committee's investigative
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: purpose because of concerns regarding potential victim association with these agreements.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: In a previous transcribed interview before this committee, a witness
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: was hesitant to answer questions about the identity of an
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: individual with whom the witness was associated. Upon disclosure of
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: this individual's identity, the committee immediately became aware of an
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: existing connection between the individual and Mr. Epstein, of which
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: the witness was not personally aware. Your client claims not
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: to be aware of any further connections between Mr. Epstein
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: and other parties to his agreements. but the committee must
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: inquire about details of such agreements to conduct a complete
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: and thorough investigation. It's not the committee's prerogative to take
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: a witness's personal belief or assertion as an absolute, proven
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: fact that is merely stipulated or left otherwise unexplored. The
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: committee must gather relevant information to draw evidence-supported conclusions to
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: support its legislative prerogatives. Ultimately, it's the committee, not you
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: and your client, that will determine the value and relevance
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: of information your client has regarding the committee's investigation into
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: the actions of Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and their associates.
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: You also take issue with the committee's specific request for
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: all nondisclosure agreements to which Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: are referenced. You argue that these requests call for information
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: beyond the scope of the committee's investigation. The committee disagrees.
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: If either Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell was associated with
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: a party in a non-disclosure agreement to which your client, Mr. Black,
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: is a party, these documents would be directly relevant to
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: the committee's investigation into Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. Furthermore,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: non-disclosure agreements with individuals who may have had a connection
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: with Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell, regardless of your client's
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: knowledge of their connection, are relevant to the committee's investigation.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: As stated above, your client's records may highlight a new
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: individual of value to the committee's inquiry, or provide evidence
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: necessary for the committee's consideration of policy or other legislative changes.
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: In defense of your production of a singular non-disclosure agreement,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: you argue that no extent any more such confidentiality agreement exists.
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: They would have been negotiated well after Epstein's death. However,
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: the fact that Mr. Black may have entered into other
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: confidentiality agreements after Epstein's death is not determinative of their
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: relevance or lack thereof, to the committee's investigation. Agreement signed
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: after Mr. Epstein's death could still involve his victims and
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: relate to conduct in which Mr. Epstein was engaged. Further, Mr.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: Black's argument is inapplicable to the involvement of Maxwell in
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: any agreement, as she is alive and subject of this investigation.
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: The subject of subpoena does not have the right to
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: decide what documents are responsive to or within the scope
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: of any any subpoena duly issued by Congress, or their
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: relevance to a valid legislative purpose. For these reasons, the
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: remaining documents are crucial to the investigation, and the committee
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: must decide the investigative value of such documents during the
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: committee's investigation. Finally, while the committee acknowledges your concerns about
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: the private nature of the contracts, Congress, legislative prerogatives, and
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: need for information to legislate are not limited to the
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: confidential terms of a private non-disclosure agreement. Your co-counsel, Ms. Estrich,
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: agrees with this sentiment as she emphasized that Mr. Black
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: had not received a subpoena, but that if he had, Mr.
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: Black and counsel would have treated the situation differently. During
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: the transcribed interview, your client refused to answer nearly a
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: dozen questions on the topic of non-disclosure agreements, which led
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: to the issuance of two subpoenas, one for your client's
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: appearance at a deposition on the since-scheduled date of September 3rd,
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: and the other that requires your client to produce the
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: following documents. 1. All non-disclosure agreements to which Leon Black
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: is party. 2. All non-disclosure agreements to which Jeffrey Epstein
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: or Glenn Maxwell is a party. 3. All non-disclosure agreements
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: to which Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell are referenced or
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: were involved in the preparation, execution, or enforcement thereof. The
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: committee engaged in another call with you on August 11th
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: to further discuss the document and deposition subpoenas. On this call,
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: you indicated that it's Mr. Black's intention to find common
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: ground on a path forward. The committee completely agrees. To
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: the extent that other NDAs or confidentiality agreements exist, the
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: committee again reiterated the requirement to provide context and clarification,
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: and for you to seek rational accommodations where appropriate. Additionally,
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: the August 11th meeting, you reiterated a point addressed in
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: your July 24th letter that to the extent that any
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: more confidentiality agreements exist, they would have been negotiated well
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: after Epstein's death. In fact, you stated that any hypothetical
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: counterparty was abundantly clear that Mr. Black should not produce
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: those agreements to the committee because they do not wish
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: to be part of the small sliver of the role Mr.
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: Black played in Jeffrey Epstein's life. dealings, and crimes. Mr.
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: Black is the subject of the subpoena, and no other
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: party dictates what he produces to the committee. To yet
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: again reiterate, the committee requires such information to decide if
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: any of these additional parties were connected to Jeffrey Epstein,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: are connected to Glenn Maxwell, or are connected to others
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: of their associates. Thus, it's likely additional responsive documents are
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: in the custody of your client, Mr. Black. You and
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: your client, Mr. Black, do not possess the right to
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: unilaterally determine which agreements will produce in response to this
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: committee's subpoena for all nondisclosure agreements. The production of a
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: singular nondisclosure agreement after the committee agreed to extend the
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: deadline in good faith by two weeks is insufficient to
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: fulfill the requirements of the subpoena, considering your letter fails
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: to articulate that there are no further nondisclosure agreements and
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: seems to imply additional Non-disclosure agreements exist. The committee demands
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: full compliance with the subpoena and rejects any attempt at
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: further disrupting or delaying this investigation. Of course, if your
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: client seeks reasonable accommodations or has scoping requests, the committee,
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: as has always been the case, is prepared to review
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: such requests. This is a common practice in congressional negotiations,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: but to this point, no requests have been made. During
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: the August 11th meeting, The committee asked again for you
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: to confirm Mr. Black's appearance for his deposition on September 3rd, 2026,
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: a date the committee offered as an accommodation to Mr.
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: Black's schedule and his need to prepare with counsel. The
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: committee reiterated that Mr. Black was required to sit for
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: his filmed, transcribed deposition in D.C. on September 3rd, and
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: you indicated that he could appear on that date. Additionally,
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: committee counsel offered to accommodate Mr. Black to allow him
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: to provide a privilege log of NDAs, to which he
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: is a party, in order to facilitate the production of
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: responsive NDAs relevant to the committee's investigation. During the August
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: 18th meeting, co-counsel for Mr. Black stated that he would
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: not agree to provide a privilege log. Additionally, co-counsel stated
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: that Mr. Black would be willing to provide one additional NDA,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: the existence of which is publicly known due to litigation,
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: in exchange for an agreement that the committee 1. agree
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: not to hold Mr. Black in contempt related to either
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: subpoena 2. 2. Change the deposition subpoena to a voluntary
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: transcribed interview. 3. Limit the scope of the transcribed interview
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: regarding confidentiality agreements to only the two NDAs Mr. Black
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: was willing to provide. 4. Delay the transcribed interview until
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: late September or early October. 5. Not video record the
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: transcribed interview. This offer is unreasonable, and if accepted would
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: result in responsive documents not being provided to the committee immediately.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: and limits being placed on the committee's ability to ask
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: questions directly relevant to the committee's investigation. The committee's been
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: clear it would be willing to work with Mr. Black
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: should he seek reasonable accommodations. For example, the committee is
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: willing to limit the scope of its subpoena for NDAs
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: to the date on which Mr. Black met Jeffrey Epstein
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: to present. Additionally, the committee is willing to review in
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: camera a privilege log listing the party's to NDAs he
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: is involved with to identify those relevant to the committee's investigation.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: At no point has Mr. Black sought a reasonable accommodation
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: from the committee, but rather he has consistently sought to
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: dictate the committee's scope of its investigation. Mr. Black's continued
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: refusal to comply with the committee's legitimate subpoenas is unacceptable.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: If Mr. Black refuses to provide the committee with responsive
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: documents or refuses to appear for the scheduled deposition on
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: September 3, 2026, the committee will use all tools at
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: its disposal, including contempt. The Committee on House Oversight Government
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: Reform is the principal oversight committee of the U.S. House
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: Representatives and has broad authority to investigate any matter at
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: any time under House Rule 10. If you have any questions...
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: please contact Committee on Oversight Government Reform. This document was
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: signed by James Comer. All the information that goes with
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.