Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Howard Lutnick And The Transcript From His Epstein Related Congressional Hearing (Part 7) (5/16/26)

Transcript

Howard Lutnick And The Transcript From His Epstein Related Congressional Hearing (Part 7) (5/16/26) · 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 getting right back to
• 0:06
  Howard Lutnik and his deposition with Congress. Question thank you sorry.
• 0:14
  So the last few questions, they've been focused on the
• 0:16
  sentence in which you described, not what you and your
• 0:19
  wife were talking about or what you were envisioning. It
• 0:23
  was the sentence where you described the nature of your
• 0:26
  interaction with Ebstein or lack thereof. So you said, quote,
• 0:30
  I was never in the room with them socially, for
• 0:32
  business or even philanthropy. I think we agreed the island
• 0:35
  visit with social in nature. But I've heard you testify
• 0:39
  that this sentence is accurate as it reads. They're on
• 0:42
  the paper, and I think the way that you arrive
• 0:46
  at that conclusion, if I'm interpreting your testimony correctly, is
• 0:49
  that you've said that you've never been in the room
• 0:51
  with Ebstein. You meant alone, not in the company of
• 0:54
  other people. Is that right answer? No, it's not. It's
• 0:58
  that I Howard Lutnak, not me, not we me and
• 1:02
  my wife. So when my wife and I are talking
• 1:04
  as we leave the residence, we discussed that I would
• 1:07
  not put myself in the situation, so I didn't say
• 1:10
  we would not. So we were with them for lunch
• 1:14
  on the island. I did not go alone. Whether we
• 1:17
  were there with other people there or not, is not
• 1:19
  the point I'm making. I'm saying, I am not accompanied
• 1:22
  by my wife, would not put myself in that situation
• 1:26
  that could possibly be with this person, even if he
• 1:29
  was with other people. It's not alone alone, it's me
• 1:32
  unaccompanied because we found him to be disgusting. Question, and
• 1:36
  I'll just clarify, I have moved on past the conversation
• 1:40
  between you and your wife. That's not what I'm asking about.
• 1:44
  What I'm asking about is the sentence from an interview
• 1:46
  in which you described your past interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.
• 1:50
  Not what you intended in two thousand and five, what
• 1:52
  actually happened, and your description of that was that you
• 1:56
  had been in the room with them socially for business
• 1:58
  or even philanthropy. We all understand that you were in
• 2:02
  the room with them in a social setting, but you
• 2:04
  have insisted that this sentence is accurate. So I just
• 2:08
  that does not make sense on its face, and I
• 2:11
  just want to understand how that could be answer. I
• 2:14
  refers to Howard Lutnik, we refers to my wife and
• 2:17
  myself together. I didn't say, we didn't discuss that we
• 2:20
  would never be with him. We discussed that I as
• 2:22
  a man would not, and I, as a man was never.
• 2:26
  So I think this is entirely accurate. Howard Lutnik was
• 2:29
  never with them socially, philanthropically, right, or in a business setting.
• 2:34
  I was never. I was with my wife on two
• 2:37
  meaningless and inconsequential interactions, but I was never with them.
• 2:41
  So that was the point. He was an inappropriate person,
• 2:44
  which we all learned in twenty nineteen, wildly inappropriate, horrible person,
• 2:49
  and I was never with him. I was never with them.
• 2:52
  I was with them with my wife on two meaningless occasions,
• 2:56
  but I was never with them. Therefore, I can never
• 2:59
  be anything remotely inappropriate because I wouldn't put myself in
• 3:02
  that situation. And that's the discussion I had with my wife. Question.
• 3:07
  And so, really, what it sounds like is that you
• 3:09
  intended to convey you would have read, so I was
• 3:12
  never in the room with him alone socially for business
• 3:15
  or philanthropy. Does that accurately characterize what you intended by
• 3:19
  that sentence? Answer? It would have, But then you would
• 3:23
  have been asking me, well, did you mean other human
• 3:26
  beings in the room. I was saying I wouldn't have
• 3:28
  been there unaccompanied by, in this particular example, my wife.
• 3:32
  So I would not go unaccompanied. I didn't mean that
• 3:34
  there couldn't be other people in the room. I'm not
• 3:37
  saying alone. I'm saying I wouldn't go and put myself
• 3:40
  in a situation where I was unaccompanied with him, because
• 3:44
  he's disgusting. So you never know what someone without boundaries
• 3:47
  what might occur. I had no interest in being there
• 3:50
  with him. That's why I use the word I. I
• 3:52
  didn't use the word we. Question, and so it sounds
• 3:56
  like specifically even narrower than that you intended to convey,
• 4:00
  I was never in a room with them, unaccompanied by
• 4:02
  my wife, socially, for business or philanthropy. Is that the
• 4:05
  nature of the intention? Answer? Yeah, question, okay. I think
• 4:09
  that statement as it reads is a very simple grammatical
• 4:12
  sentence and has been interpreted by just about anybody who
• 4:16
  has heard it as reading exactly how it says. Quote,
• 4:19
  I was never in the room with Epstein socially. Could
• 4:21
  you understand how folks I think have felt misled by
• 4:25
  that remark, Mister Tellwinger, I would object. I think you're
• 4:29
  just asking him to speculate what other people thought redacted question. Yeah,
• 4:34
  I mean, it's not a legal sense. You surely are
• 4:37
  familiar at this point with the fact that that remark
• 4:40
  when it was made, was heard to mean what it says,
• 4:43
  which is that you are not in the room with
• 4:45
  Epstein socially for business or philanthropy. It turns out you
• 4:49
  were at the island socially. Folks have viewed that, I
• 4:52
  think as a willful misrepresentation. I've heard your testimony here
• 4:56
  as to what the intention was. Is there a perception
• 4:59
  on your part that the statement, as you said, was misleading? Answer,
• 5:03
  it was not misleading. No, you know what I said,
• 5:06
  and you know what I meant, and it's clear from
• 5:08
  the words that I was accurate. Question and the phrase
• 5:11
  one and done was used several other times. That's my story,
• 5:15
  one and absolutely done. Just from a general point of view,
• 5:19
  you describe two subsequent interactions after the tour once and
• 5:23
  done suggests it was one and done. Did you understand
• 5:26
  that there was more than one subsequent interaction when you
• 5:29
  use the phrase one and done? Answer again, the point
• 5:33
  I was making is that I wanted to be clear
• 5:36
  on a podcast that I was never with them, which
• 5:38
  I was not. As I said, I was never with them,
• 5:41
  meaning I was never in a situation with them. I
• 5:44
  was with my wife, and they were meaningless and inconsequential,
• 5:48
  but intextually, so people would understand I was never with
• 5:51
  them in any other manner. I Howard Lutnik, one person,
• 5:55
  was never in a situation, so you couldn't take it
• 5:57
  out of context. I was never with them question, and
• 6:01
  we'll get to some other folks questions here, But what
• 6:04
  does the phrase one and none mean to you or
• 6:07
  what is your understanding of the meaning of that phrase? Answer?
• 6:11
  I avoided them, and I was never with them as
• 6:14
  a person. As a man, I was never with them redacted.
• 6:19
  I'm going to ask some questions from members of Congress
• 6:21
  that are here today. Mister Conna, thank you, mister secretary.
• 6:26
  You have said, quote what happened in that massage room,
• 6:28
  I assume was on video when you were there with Epstein.
• 6:32
  How did you know what was on video? Did mister
• 6:34
  Epstein ever tell you that he recorded people? Lett Nick
• 6:37
  know that was just me speculating for a podcast. Conna
• 6:41
  did you ever see any recordings? Let Nick know, Conna,
• 6:45
  did you have any reason to know other than speculation
• 6:49
  that there were videos taking place? Let Nick know? It
• 6:52
  was speculating for a podcast, Conna. Well, what was the
• 6:55
  speculation based on? Lutnick? Just raw speculation nothing, Conna. And
• 7:01
  you said also that Epstein was the greatest blackmailer ever,
• 7:05
  that's how he made his money. What was the premise
• 7:08
  behind that? I mean, how did you know that? Lutnick?
• 7:11
  I was just speculating for a podcast, Conna. But what
• 7:15
  was I mean, you speculate on a lot of things.
• 7:17
  There's a reason you speculate. What was the reason? Why
• 7:19
  did you believe that to be true? Lut Nick? He
• 7:22
  seemed to have a lot of money, That's why I
• 7:24
  was speculating. I was just speculating. Question, do you know
• 7:28
  anyone that he blackmailed or hurt anyone that he black
• 7:30
  melt Lutnick? No, Conna. Have you heard anyone say that
• 7:34
  they fell pressure with him and had to pay him? Lutnick? No, Conna.
• 7:38
  Did you believe that he engaged in blackmail? Lutnick? It
• 7:41
  was my speculation at the time, Conna. Is it sill
• 7:44
  your belief Lutnick. No, Conna, Now you believe he didn't
• 7:48
  engage in blackmail? Lutnick, Yes, I don't believe he did. Question, Conna,
• 7:54
  so you said that you have a different view of
• 7:56
  it then you did on the podcast. Now, Lutnick, I do, Conna,
• 8:00
  And why is that? Lutnick? Because there are people who
• 8:04
  have been from the administration who have all the details,
• 8:07
  who have said so, and I credit what they say. Conna.
• 8:10
  First Lady Malanya Trump said that each and every woman
• 8:13
  should have her day to tell her story in public.
• 8:15
  Then and only then will we have the truth. Do
• 8:18
  you agree with the first lady? Lutnick, I support the
• 8:21
  first lady. Sure, question, Conna. Do you agree with the statement? Lutnick.
• 8:25
  I don't agree or disagree. I just support her. Conna.
• 8:29
  She also said that she supports the full investigation and
• 8:32
  the release of the remaining files. Do you support her
• 8:34
  on that? Lutnick, I'll leave that to the administration. I
• 8:38
  don't have an opinion one way or the other. Conna, Well,
• 8:41
  I mean, do you support her on the fact that
• 8:43
  she's calling for an investigation and releasing the Epstein files. Lutnick. Again,
• 8:48
  I'll leave that to the administration. Itself, Conna, you don't
• 8:51
  have an opinion on whether you support the first lady's call. Terwillinger,
• 8:56
  the other lawyer for Lutnick, jumps in, I think the
• 8:59
  question been asked several times and answered. Conna, you said
• 9:03
  that technically you were accurate in this podcast about never
• 9:07
  wanting to be in the room with Epstein as a
• 9:10
  matter not a legal matter or as a matter of legality.
• 9:13
  But do you have some regret that you should have
• 9:14
  been more forthcoming if you had to do it again?
• 9:18
  And I say I did have these two encounters that
• 9:21
  you say we're trivial Lutnick. No, this was a podcast
• 9:24
  and I think I made it the point reasonably. Conna,
• 9:28
  you have no Yeah, look, I actually believe you that
• 9:31
  you didn't go and try to do some of the
• 9:33
  other disgusting men did with Epstein. But you don't have
• 9:36
  some sense that maybe you should have been more forthcoming.
• 9:39
  I'm not saying it's sort of career ending. I'm just saying,
• 9:42
  now you see that sort of people are saying that
• 9:44
  you weren't fully transparent. Would you have said the same
• 9:47
  thing or do you have some sense of maybe I
• 9:49
  should have mentioned a couple more things Lutnick. No, for
• 9:53
  the podcast. But I'm saying for the podcast, I made
• 9:57
  the point. Even if you look at it, you'd say, well,
• 9:59
  Secretary Nick said he wasn't with the guy, and now
• 10:02
  that I have full information, he actually wasn't with the person.
• 10:05
  I mean, that's true. Mister Conna. You acknowledged the fact
• 10:09
  that you had these things that came out in the files.
• 10:12
  Do you think that before that you should have said
• 10:15
  something at that point, whether it was just a podcast
• 10:18
  or not. You know, no one's perfect. I'm just saying,
• 10:20
  in retrospect, do you think that you should have been
• 10:23
  a little bit more forthcoming on those two incidents? And
• 10:26
  maybe it wouldn't have been as big of a deal
• 10:29
  if you had said that, lut Nick. I thought I
• 10:31
  described an informal conversation with my wife from twenty years
• 10:35
  ago to make the point I was trying to make.
• 10:37
  I thought I made it reasonably. I tried to make
• 10:40
  it reasonably, Conna, So you have no regret lut Nick. No, Conna.
• 10:46
  I'm done, mister Submerennium. Thank you, Thank you, mister secretary
• 10:52
  for being here today as well. I appreciate your time.
• 10:55
  I'm just having struggling with this one and absolutely done.
• 10:59
  Does that mean were you're trying to imply that you
• 11:02
  had only met with Epstein once? When you said that Ludnick,
• 11:06
  I was trying to let the podcast understand that I
• 11:08
  would never be with him. He was a disgusting person,
• 11:11
  which we all learned after twenty nineteen. Mister Submaranian, Oh,
• 11:16
  I know that Lutnick, but I was never with him,
• 11:19
  And the point I was making was that I was
• 11:21
  never with him, and that the people listening to the
• 11:23
  podcast should understand. I never put myself in a situation
• 11:27
  where I was with him where anything could have possibly happened.
• 11:31
  That's why I said, That's why I described the conversation
• 11:34
  I had with my wife reasonably accurately, informally, but reasonably accurately. Question,
• 11:40
  when you're sitting down with him talking about scaffolding, aren't
• 11:43
  you with him in that room? Even if your wife
• 11:45
  is there. You're both with them, right Lutnick? Yeah. Question?
• 11:51
  Are you and I with each other right now? Are
• 11:53
  we in the same room? Lutnick yeah. Question, there's other
• 11:57
  people here, right, but you and I are both here
• 12:00
  with each other right now, So how can you say
• 12:03
  that you are not with them? Subsequently, That's what I'm
• 12:05
  trying to understand, Lutnick. I think I reasonably described an
• 12:09
  informal conversation I had with my wife that would be
• 12:12
  understood by people who were married, that we had an
• 12:15
  encounter with someone who was inappropriate, and we discussed that
• 12:18
  I would avoid them. And I think everybody who's married
• 12:21
  understands that when they have a conversation with their wife,
• 12:24
  that the wife can say you avoid them. It's a
• 12:27
  conversation that everybody, I think understands. And to suggest that
• 12:31
  I was being literal that I would literally never be
• 12:33
  in the room with them, is not what I intended.
• 12:36
  It was my words. Question, I understand, Lutnik, and I'm
• 12:41
  telling you that is not what I said. I said
• 12:43
  it was a conversation, an informal conversation with me and
• 12:47
  my wife, and I think people who are married would
• 12:49
  understand that my wife was saying to me, avoid him.
• 12:52
  He has no boundaries. And you know for a fact
• 12:55
  that I did avoid him. I literally avoided him. Question.
• 13:00
  I don't know that for a fact, because there's two
• 13:02
  other occasions where you didn't avoid him. You did not
• 13:05
  have to go to his island, so you didn't avoid
• 13:07
  him in that case, you didn't have to go talk
• 13:09
  to him about scaffolding, so you didn't avoid him then either.
• 13:13
  But when you say one and done, that means one
• 13:15
  occasion in which you were with him, even with your wife.
• 13:18
  So would you say that was not an accurate statement
• 13:21
  to say one and absolutely done? And remember this is
• 13:25
  two separate times you're talking. You're talking once about with
• 13:29
  his wife, about the conversation with your wife rather, and
• 13:33
  then you're separately saying, so I was never with him,
• 13:35
  never in the room with them socially, so that was separate.
• 13:38
  You were not talking about the conversation with your wife.
• 13:41
  Here you said one and absolutely done, and after that
• 13:45
  you said, that's my story, So you were implying that
• 13:48
  you had only been there, been with them once. Lut Nick,
• 13:51
  I tried to describe it in detail. So I'll stick
• 13:54
  with my description which I gave you in the same
• 13:56
  exact topic. Question, I'm gonna switch gears. Have you talked
• 14:01
  to the Commerce department about your inclusion in the Epstein
• 14:04
  files or appearance here today? Lutnick? Yeah, question, what were
• 14:08
  those conversations about? Generally? Lutnick that I would be attending
• 14:11
  and that I have a lawyer have you used Commerce
• 14:15
  Department resources or staff to discuss this or talk about
• 14:18
  your defense today? Lutnick, no question. And have you had
• 14:22
  conversations with President Trump about Jeffrey Epstein or the Epstein
• 14:27
  files generally, or your involvement with any of them? Lutnick.
• 14:32
  I'm not going to discuss conversations I have with President,
• 14:34
  but you shouldn't take it one way or the other.
• 14:36
  I'm just not going to have discussions on it. But
• 14:39
  please don't take from that one way or the other.
• 14:41
  With respect to the conversation question, have you had conversations
• 14:46
  with Attorney General Bondi or former Attorney General Bondi or
• 14:50
  the current Attorney General about the Epstein case? Answer? No question.
• 14:54
  Did this ever come up during your vetting, your living
• 14:57
  next door to Jeffrey Epstein or any association with Lutnick,
• 15:00
  not that I can remember. Question and the last question
• 15:05
  you mentioned that you were you found them disgusting, you
• 15:07
  found them gross, right, and you didn't want to be
• 15:09
  involved with them. Why would you then go to his
• 15:11
  island with your family at that point? What was your
• 15:14
  decision making process to go to his island at that point?
• 15:17
  In twenty twelve, so many years later Lutnick, I don't know.
• 15:21
  I don't know. Question you don't know, Lutnick, I don't
• 15:27
  I don't remember, and I don't know. Question do you
• 15:30
  recall the decision making process with your staff as far
• 15:32
  as deciding to go to the island? Did they say
• 15:35
  this is a good idea? What was the decision making process? Like?
• 15:39
  Do you remember, Lutnik, I don't. As I said earlier,
• 15:43
  the fact that they that his staff knew I was
• 15:45
  going to be there and pursued us is inexplicable and unsettling.
• 15:48
  But I don't remember. Submaranium. Thank you. All right, folks,
• 15:54
  we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
• 15:56
  next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off.
• 15:59
  All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 16:01
  found in the description box.