Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Howard Lutnick And The Transcript From His Epstein Related Congressional Hearing (Part 1) (5/14/26)

Transcript

Howard Lutnick And The Transcript From His Epstein Related Congressional Hearing (Part 1) (5/14/26) · 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 begin taking
0:07
a look at the Howard Lutnik transcripts from the deposition
0:11
in front of Congress. Mister Emmer will go on the record.
0:15
This is a transcribed interview of Secretary Howard W. Lutnik
0:19
conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
0:23
under the authority granted to it pursuant to House Rule ten. Accordingly,
0:28
House Rule ten grants the Committee bore jurisdiction for the
0:31
Committee to conduct investigations of any matter at any time.
0:36
This interview is requested by Chairman James Comer as part
0:39
of the Committee's investigation into the circumstances and subsequent investigation
0:44
into the circumstances and subsequent investigations and the crimes of
0:48
Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell, the operation of the sex
0:53
trafficking rings and ways for the government to effectively combat them,
0:57
The ways in which mister Epstein and miss Maxwell's ought
1:00
to curry favor and exercise influence to protect their legal activities,
1:04
and potential violations of ethic rules related to elected officials.
1:09
Can the witness please state his name and spell his
1:12
last name for the record. Secretary Lutnick Howard Lutnik l
1:17
U T N I c K. Mister Emmer, thank you.
1:22
I want to thank Secretary Lutnik for appearing voluntarily here today.
1:26
My name is Jack Emmer, and I'm the Chief Council
1:29
for Investigations for Chairman James Comer. Under the Committee on
1:34
Oversight and Government Reform rules, you're allowed to have council
1:37
present to advise you during the interview. Do you have
1:40
counsel representing you present with you today? Lutnik, yeah, Emmer,
1:46
will counsel please identify themselves for the record. Mister Tellwigger,
1:50
who is the lawyer for Lutnick? Zach Urwilger, a partner
1:57
at Vincent and Elkins law firm. Another lawyer pops up,
2:01
mister Crowley Michael Crowley, Associate Vincent and Elkins. Another lawyer,
2:07
mister Mayron, Austin Meyron, Department of Commerce. This dou needs
2:11
three lawyers to do a deposition about somebody he only
2:14
met three times, according to him. Okay, mister Emmer, thank
2:18
you for the record. Starting with the majority staff, can
2:21
the additional staff members please introduce themselves with their name,
2:24
title and affiliation. Mister Grant Billy Grant, Deputy Chief Council
2:29
for Investigations, Chairman Comber, Peter Spector, Director of Oversight for
2:34
Chairman Comer, Ellison Tolan, Council Chairman Comer, Hannah Cathy, Professional
2:40
staff Member Chairman Comer, Emily Firebend Council for Chairman Comber,
2:48
Brittany Brignack, Senior Council Chairman Comber. Mister Ashworth, Daniel Ashworth,
2:54
General Counsel for Chairman Comber, Will Harness, professional staff member
2:59
for Chairman Coomber, Ashley Vineyard, Deputy staff Director for Chairman Comer,
3:05
Jessica Collins, Communications Director for Comer, and then the next
3:10
names are redacted. Mister Emmer, thank you. We have members
3:14
of Congress present today, starting with the Chairman can the
3:17
Majority members intro, and then the minority members James Comer, Kentucky,
3:23
William Timmins, South Carolina. Emmer, thank you, Secretary Lutnik. Before
3:28
we weigh in, I would like to go over the
3:30
ground rules for this interview. The questioning will proceed in rounds.
3:34
The majority will ask questions for up to an hour,
3:37
and then the minority will have an opportunity to ask
3:39
questions for up to an hour if they choose to
3:42
the extent. Members have questions for the witness, they will
3:46
be propounded during their sides respective rounds. The clock will
3:50
stop before you need to confer with your council, your
3:53
council speaking, and when members are speaking during the opposing
3:56
sides rounds of questions, we will all back and forth
4:01
until there are no more questions. Do you understand, Secretary,
4:04
letnak I do emmer. There is a court reporter taking
4:08
down everything I say and everything you say to make
4:11
a written record of the interview. For the record to
4:13
be clear, please wait until the staffer questioning you finishes
4:17
at each question before you begin your answer, and the
4:20
staffer will wait until you finish your response before proceeding
4:24
to the next round. Further, to ensure that the court
4:26
reporter can properly record the interview, please speak clearly, concisely,
4:31
and slowly. Also, the court reporter cannot record nonverbal answers,
4:35
such as nodding or shaking your head, so it's important
4:39
that you answer each question with an audible verbal answer.
4:45
Exhibits may be entered into the record. Majority exhibits will
4:48
be identified numerically. Minority exhibits will be identified alphabetically. Do
4:54
you understand leut nak I do emmer? We want you
4:57
to answer our questions in the most complete and truthful
5:00
manner possible, so we'll take our time. If you have
5:03
any questions or you don't fully understand the question, please
5:06
let us know. We will attempt to clarify, add context,
5:10
or rephrase our questions. If we ask about specific conversations
5:14
or events in the past, and you are unable to
5:17
recall the exact words or details, you should testify to
5:19
the substance of those conversations or events to the best
5:23
of your recollection. If you recall only part of a
5:27
conversation or event, you should give us your best recollection
5:30
of those events or parts of conversations that you do recall.
5:34
Do you understand, let nick I do emmer. Although you're
5:38
here voluntarily and you'll not be sworn in, you're required
5:41
by law pursuant to Title eighteen of the United States Code,
5:45
Section one thousand and one to answer questions from Congress truthfully,
5:50
not even sworn in. You guys catching on yet, It's
5:54
all a big fucking joke, That's all it is. To
5:57
these people, but not to us and not to the
6:00
vast majority of people out there that are paying attention.
6:03
And this also applies to questions posed by Congressional staff
6:07
in the interview. Do you understand lutnake i do emmer?
6:11
If at any time you knowingly make false statements, you
6:14
could be subject to criminal prosecution. Do you understand lutnik
6:17
i do Emmer. This includes both knowingly providing false testimony,
6:22
but also stating that you do not recall or remember
6:25
something when in fact you do. Do you understand lutnick
6:29
i do Emmer. Furthermore, you cannot tell half truth or
6:33
exclude information necessary to make statements accurate. You're required to
6:37
provide all information that would make your response truthful. A
6:41
deliberate failure to disclose information can constitute a false statement.
6:45
Do you understand lutnick i do emmer? Is there any
6:49
reason that you're unable to provide truthful testimony in today's interview?
6:53
Lt Nick no Emmer. Please note that if you wish
6:57
to assert a privilege over any statement today, that assertion
7:01
must comply with the rules of the Committee on Oversight
7:04
and Government Reform pursu into that Committee, Rule sixteen C
7:08
one states for the chair to consider assertions of privilege
7:12
over testimony or statements, witnesses or entities must clearly state
7:17
the specific privilege being asserted and the reason for the
7:20
assertion honor before the scheduled date of testimony or appearance.
7:25
Do you understand, Secretary Lutnik, I do emmer. Ordinarily we
7:30
take a five minute break at the end of each
7:32
hour of questioning, but if you need a longer break
7:35
or a break before that, please let us know, and
7:37
will be happy to accommodate. However, to the extent that
7:41
there is a pending question, we would ask you to
7:43
finish answering the question before we take a break. Do
7:46
you understand, Lutnik? I do emmer. Do you have any
7:50
other questions before we begin? Lutnick no emmer. Do you
7:54
have an opening statement that you would like to read?
7:56
Lutnick I do emmer. You may proceed, Lutnik, Chairman, Comer,
8:03
members of the Committee and Committee staff, I unequivocally condemned
8:07
the conduct attributed to Jeffrey Epstein and everyone who participated
8:11
in his legal activities. The survivors of his crimes deserve
8:16
our respect and support. I voluntarily agreed to appear and
8:20
answer questions in connection with this Committee's investigation. I would
8:25
like to begin by briefly describing my virtually non existent
8:28
interactions with this individual who lived adjacent to my New
8:32
York City home. In nineteen ninety seven, I purchased an
8:35
unfinished townhouse as my family home in New York City.
8:39
Renovations took several more years than expected due to the
8:43
events of September eleventh terrorist attacks and their impact on me,
8:47
my family, and all my co workers in the World
8:50
Trade Center. Approximately eight years after our purchase, in two
8:54
thousand and five, my family and I finally moved into
8:58
our new home, which happened to be a to his residence.
9:02
Shortly thereafter, my wife and I were invited by that
9:05
individual to his residence for coffee. During this brief interaction
9:09
that included my wife, me, and this individual, he made
9:13
a crude and gross remark in my wife's presence, which
9:16
caused us to cut the visit short and leave immediately
9:21
Following that brief initial meeting. As we walk back to
9:23
our home, my wife and I discussed the encounter and that,
9:27
given his clear lack of boundaries, I would never establish
9:30
a personal or professional relationship with them, and that is
9:34
exactly what I did following this two thousand and five interaction.
9:39
My only other two interactions with Epstein over the ensuring
9:43
ensuing fourteen years were both meaningless and inconsequential. My second
9:48
interaction occurred six years later in twenty eleven, when his
9:51
staff initiated contact with my office, suggesting he had a
9:55
reason to get in touch with me. Our offices attempted
9:58
to connect us by phone over the course of several weeks,
10:01
but we were unable to do so. Ultimately, to the
10:04
best of my recollection, his staff indicated he would be
10:07
in his residence on a particular weekend afternoon, and my
10:11
staff arranged for me to ring his bell during my
10:14
and my wife's typical Sunday walk around the block with
10:17
our dogs to hear what he had to say. My
10:20
best recollection is I rang the bell, sat in his
10:22
foyer with my dog, waited for him to come down,
10:25
heard what he had to say, and I left. As
10:28
far as I recall, it was about scaffolding. It was
10:31
meaningless and inconsequential. Next, some eighteen months later, in late
10:37
twenty twelve, his staff inexplicably contacted my office unprompted regarding
10:42
my family's planned holiday travel to the Caribbean. Unbeknownst to me,
10:46
his staff somehow had become aware that my family and
10:49
I would be near his island over the holidays, although
10:53
they were apparently unsure whether that meant during the Thanksgiving
10:57
or Christmas holiday. I still have no idea how has
11:00
staff discovered my family's vacation plans or why they're pursued
11:03
arranging a visit with me. From what I have since learned,
11:07
it appears he was initially seeking a meeting with just me.
11:11
My wife made clear, however, that we had a large
11:14
traveling party of approximately twelve plus people, and if we
11:18
were to come, it would be with everyone. My family
11:21
of six and another family of six had a brief,
11:24
meaningless and inconsequential lunch, and then left. To the best
11:29
of my recollection, those were the only three occasions in
11:33
which I interacted with Epstein in person. Each and every
11:36
one of those was meaningless and inconsequential. To put this
11:41
in perspective, Epstein lived in the house next door to
11:43
my family for fourteen years, and in that time I
11:46
interacted with him in person only three times, again, each
11:50
meaningless and inconsequential. I had no personal or professional relationship
11:56
with this individual, despite the proximity of our addresses. Further,
12:00
at no time during these limited interactions did I witness
12:03
any conduct, let alone any type of illegal conduct of
12:07
which we have since become aware. In closing, after our
12:11
first interaction, my wife and I discussed that I would
12:14
not establish a personal or a professional relationship with that individual.
12:19
On a podcast on October twenty twenty five, I informally
12:23
recounted that conversation. What I said on that podcast regarding
12:27
my conversation with my wife was correct. I did not
12:31
establish a personal or a professional relationship with that individual.
12:35
The documents and my prior testimony confirm that I am
12:39
here to answer your questions. All right, folks, We're going
12:42
to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
12:44
we're going to pick up where we left off. All
12:46
the information that goes with this episode can be found
12:49
in the description box.