← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Bill Barr And The Epstein Related Deposition Given To Congress (Part 7-9) (5/19/26)
00:41:03
Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that...
Loading summary
Transcript10 lines
- [00:02]
A
During Memorial Day at Lowe's shop Household must haves for less. Save $80 on the Char Broil Performance Series 4 Burner Grill to chef up something special plus get up to 45% off. Select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's Lowe's we help you save valid through 527 while supplies last selection varies by location. See Lowes.com for details.
- [00:25]
B
Visit your nearby Lowes Foreign what's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking right back up where we left off with the Bill Bar Deposition Transcript Question and do you know how long the FBI's investigation continued? Answer I think it continued throughout my tenure. Question I'd like to shift the focus on the evidence that the FBI obtained during the course of the investigation and I'm going to that she's cut off by Barr. I think it was an investigation directed by the Southern District, so it involved their prosecutorial team. It wasn't the FBI in the initial stages of the investigation, but they were essentially cut off. Yes Answered by Barr. Again working with the prosecutors. Question Understood. I'm going to ask the court reporter to mark exhibit A as an ABC News article titled Working what the Government Evidence List tells us about the unreleased Epstein files dated July 17, 2025 as Exhibit B, a three page catalog of evidence that was reportedly prepared by the FBI. Bar Should I read the whole thing or redacted No, I can point to you. You're certainly welcome to. I can also point you to the portions that I plan to ask you about. Bar well, why don't we try that? Redacted sure. Question so the article describes Attorney General Bondi making available, quote unquote, the first phase of the declassified Epstein files. Mr. Barr, were you previously aware of Ms. Bondi making these materials public? Answer Just what I read in the press. Question do you have any understanding as to why Attorney General Bondi did so? Answer I've never discussed the matter with her. I don't know. Question and you have an understanding of what the Epstein files contained? As the phrase is used in this piece? O' Callahan the lawyer four Bar Answers as you mean in the ABC piece Witness where it was used Redacted I'm looking at the first sentence of the article that refers to Attorney General Bondi releasing the first phase of the declassified Epstein files. It's the very first sentence of the article. Yeah, I see that. Yeah. Question do you have an understanding as to what those files are comprised of? No. Question. And then Exhibit B is a catalog which, according to the ABC piece, is the only document in the first phase of the declassified files that hadn't previously been made public by bar. This is what you have given to me. Question. So it's what the ABC piece describes as the only documents in the first phase of the declassified materials that Attorney General Pam Bondi released that have not previously been made public. Okay. Question. And my question is, have you seen this catalog before? I don't recall seeing it before. Question. Are you familiar with any of the items that it describes? You want me to go through each item? I'm not generally. I'll just say this. I'm not generally familiar or even specifically familiar with the evidence amassed by the Southern District to prosecute either Epstein before he committed suicide, obviously. And then what they may have collected that affected other potential defendants. In other words, I wasn't monitoring the case that closely to know what the evidence was. You mentioned that. I think while I was there, they reached the conclusion that they had a case against Maxwell. And I don't have specific recollections of it, but I'm sure I was briefed on what the charges were and what the evidence supported it. Question. Okay, answer. But I have no way of liking or linking any of this. This is gibberish to me because I have no way of linking the content to the case. Question. Okay, o'. Callahan. Redacted. Are you sure Exhibit B is what the article refers to? Because the article refers to a three page index and this is much longer than three pages. Redacted. Yep. So, Ed, that is an enhanced version of the catalog which, if you print it out from the publicly available source, contains typeface that is far smaller. So we blew it up so that your client would be able to read it at the witness table. Mr. O'. Callaghan. Okay. The witness. Okay. Thank you, Mr. O'. Callaghan. Me, too. I wouldn't know this stuff. I mean, I may have been aware of some of it, but it has to be better identified for me, you know? But as I say, generally speaking, the way I understood what was going on in the Southern District, other than looking at the issue of suicide, which I carefully monitored, was doing what a U.S. attorney office normally does. And my understanding is that at that point, after the suicide, they were looking to make to see if there was evidence to charge someone for participating in the trafficking. And I didn't monitor their investigation, as I wouldn't generally monitor an investigation unless there was a particular reason to do so. Redacted. Question you mentioned earlier, as I understood that your knowledge, the FBI's investigation continued throughout your tenure as attorney general, answer yes. QUESTION to your understanding, did it continue after you left doj? Answer I don't recall. I think I don't recall. But my impression is that this was a very motivated group of prosecutors, and this was a high priority for the office and for the department, and they were moving forward. My belief and understanding was if they came across evidence that would establish either that someone helped them in recruiting these young girls or was involved in sexual activity with them, that they would have proceeded on that case. That was my view, and I didn't think that this group of prosecutors would stop and until they were satisfied that they had gone through the evidence. So from my standpoint, both for reasons of Justice Department protocol, which required them to alert me if they actually started going down that trail as to any prominent person, and also just from the practicality that I think that kind of information, if someone is trying to sit on it, would have bled out eventually. I was not aware of that evidence that they had that they would do that. I was never given reason to believe that they had evidence to make a case. JASMINE Crockett, can I jump in really quickly on this point? Just to follow up? It's been widely reported that the president was informed by the current attorney general, Pam Bondi, that he appears in the Department of Justice files on Jeffrey Epstein. I'm curious to know, in those conversations that you recall with President, do you recall ever informing him that he was in the Epstein files? 1 I'll ask that, so I don't have a compound question. Yeah, well, I'm not sure what Epstein files refer to these days, but no, I didn't have that kind of conversation with him. I think at some point logs were made available or public that he was on Epstein's plane making commutes from or flying between Miami and New York or Miami and New Jersey or stuff like that. And I think that that got out publicly. I don't recall discussing that with him. Ms. Crockett okay. Bar and I can't even remember when it came out. CROCKETT okay, so to be clear, you had no direct knowledge of the president himself being named in the Epstein investigation, is what you're telling us? BAR no, I'm saying that in the year many years up to the case, there had been news coverage reporting on essentially two kinds of people, people who were either in business or social networks and had connections with them, which to me doesn't mean that is a crime. And there are many names thrown around. Like, then there were names that were specific, credible evidence or specific serious evidence by, for example, a victim, a specific victim that were exploited by a particular person. So there were those sort of people. And my understanding was that the New York office was trying to see if there was, in fact, any evidence that to support that any of these people actually violated the law. JASMINE Crockett and you have no direct knowledge of any of the now young women or women that claimed that they had encounters with the president through Epstein, Correct? BAR I was never told by the Southern District that they had evidence to support any claim like that. Crockett thank you. Witness as to who? As to Trump. Crockett Yes. WITNESS yeah. CROCKETT Sorry. President TRUMP I was never told that there was evidence to support that claim. JASMINE CROCKETT I'm done. Sorry. Just shifting back to the evidence that the FBI gathered, there have been reports of hidden cameras and recording systems at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence. Are you aware of the existence of any such cameras and a recording system? I think when the search, I was aware. I can't even remember if it was after I left or while I was there, but I remember that there were cameras uncovered during the searches that were made of the Manhattan Building and I think also the island, maybe even wasn't there a place in New Mexico as well? I heard that there were things being uncovered like that nobody ever raided Zorro Ranch. Bill Barr this guy knows a lot more than he's telling us. Count on it. Question did you ever see the footage? Answer no. Question from the system? Answer no. And is that footage, to your knowledge, still within the possession of the doj? Whatever information was collected, I have no reason to think it's not in their possession. I never went and looked at the evidence that they were collecting. Do you have an understanding as to why that material hasn't been publicly released? I have no knowledge as to why, but I think I understand the potential reasons for it. Which is which, in your view, or what? Answer well, I mean, in terms of conducting an investigation, you would have some stuff that's grand jury material that was collected pursuant to the grand jury process and through the grand jury process and that would normally not be made public. And I think there are strong reasons for not making grand jury public, including requiring the approval of a court's approval as to other evidence. I think there are strong policy reasons not to make it available, which an attorney general at the time has to make judgments as to what are the reasons to make it public and what are the reasons against making it public. And among the reasons for not making it public generally just here all is is because there are frequently, there's frequently tidbits of evidence that can be cast publicly as incriminating when in fact against all of the evidence it isn't. And the judgments about credibility are made. I think we've all seen examples where 302s the necessarily could be wrong on something they say a witness could later say I didn't say that and so forth. So you have to be careful about what you say about people. And so the general principle is that if you have enough evidence to charge someone, you put that evidence out through the process, but you don't just open your files. So I can understand why there is reluctance to it. And as I say, an attorney general has to make balance
- [11:30]
A
during Memorial Day at Lowe's shop household must haves for less save 80 on a charboard Royal Performance Series 4 burner grill to chef up something special plus get up to 45 off select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Lowe's we help you save valid through 527 while supplies last selection varies by location. See Lowes.com for details.
- [11:53]
B
Visit your nearby Lowe's. Question as we saw a few minutes ago when we looked at the ABC article exhibit A, Attorney General Pam Bondi did release a significant volume of material earlier this year. Do you disagree with her decision to do that? Answer, no, I don't agree or disagree. I haven't kept up with what's in there. And as I say, it's sort of an individual judgment based on balancing. And I don't have transparency into all the factors that are at play here. I mean, a lot of the information is out there because of civil cases, you know. You know, that's another important part of the context here. A lot to the extent there are victims, I mean, which obviously there are victims, but a lot of those victims have neither been encouraged to bring civil suits or have brought civil suits. And in that context, a lot of the evidence has been released through those cases. Question. And just so we're clear on the parameters, am I correct that it was within the Attorney General's authority to release materials like this at his or her discretion? Well, there's no law against it. I guess the way I look at it, there's no law against it except for grand jury secrecy. That's my understanding of the situation. Okay. But there are consequences for releasing everything out there because that will make it harder to conduct investigations in the future on anything if people say whatever they say is going to be out in public, even though it's not evidence of a crime. Question Are there, in your view, certain categories of cases that rise to a level of public interest such that the released of this kind of information is appropriate despite the considerations that you just articulated? Answer, well, part of my direct experience was obviously the Mueller report. Now, it's not exactly the same kind of situation, but there I did agree to put out the reports, even though it canvassed a lot of the evidence. But we sanitized it for the grand jury material, ever classified material and also material that was unfair to third parties who we were not charging. If we weren't charging someone with a crime or accusing someone of committing a crime, that was one of the other considerations that we used. But we did. At the end of the day, I felt the public interest demanded putting out what we put out. Question do you think that a case for a public release, in the instance of the Mueller report, was. Was stronger or weaker than the case with respect to the Epstein material? Answer, you know, it had to do with the head of state and whether he was a Russian spy. I don't think you can get more important than that. All right, folks, so we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with Bill Barr and his deposition before Congress. Question Shifting back to the evidence, as you're probably aware, there's been significant focus on the possible existence of what's been described as an Epstein client list. Is that a term that you've heard before? Answer by bar I've heard the term, but I've always been confused as to what it actually referred to. I think it needs to be clarified. Do you have an understanding as to what the terms refer to? Well, I guess my view is Epstein sort of had three lives. He was a socialite and he had a lot of social activity that was legal and he was meeting prominent people all over the place socially. Second, he was a business guy and had business relationships all over the place. And third, he had a perverted practice of recruiting young girls for his own satisfaction. And there were some allegations that he made those girls available to contacts of his. And so when I hear a client list, are we talking about his financial clients? I doubt it. Are we talking about his social phone book? I doubt it. Are we talking about. Are we sort of equating this to acting like a madman out of bordello and that he sort of has a list of his clients that use the bordello? That's what I think people are referring to. Question so answer so that's how I take the term Question So with that understanding, are you aware of a list that fits the category that you just described? Answer Like a bordello, madam? Question yes. Answer no, I was never told that there was such a list. I don't have a reason to think that there is such a list. But by that we're talking about a list that's put together by him, okay? He's compiled something. That's not to say that by going through the evidence, interviews, statements of the victims and so forth, you couldn't figure out who some of those people were. Question but again, just tying all this together to your understanding, does there exist a single document that contains the names of individuals who had participated in or were complicit in the crimes that Jeffrey Epstein was charged with? Answer I have no reason. I was never told that that was the case by the SDNY or, or the FBI. Question in public statements, Attorney General Pam Bondi had initially seemed to acknowledge that such a document existed and was asked specifically about, quote, unquote, the client list, but then backtracked, as reflected in the July 2025 memorandum from the FBI that explicitly disclaims the existence of any such list. Do you have any understanding as to why Attorney General Bondi initially made that representation? Answer no, I have no knowledge. I could see see that. Her explanation. I heard her explanation of it, and I think it's potentially a good explanation. I don't discount it. Question did it strike you as unusual that she changed your position publicly? Answer well, I don't know if she changed your position. My understanding is that, and I did watch the interview that she, you know, she started answering. She was basically geared up to answer the question about how she was going to get the material out. And the questioner at the end put in the phrase client list and she blew through that and just gave the answer she was going to give like it's on my desk. And her explanation, I think, is that she was referring to the file that she intended to put out. I don't discount that, but I have no knowledge. Question okay, are you aware of the document that Jeffrey Epstein kept that he referred to in the press as quote unquote, the black book. Answer Do I have knowledge of what? Question A document that the press has described as maintained by Mr. Epstein and referred to as a black book. Answer I think I've heard, I've seen that expression in the media, but as I say, no one has ever and I sort of took that as the client list since versus as a phone book with his everybody in it that he socializes or does business with. And as I've said, no one has ever indicated to me that, that there is something, one place that compiles the people that he essentially exploited these girls by providing them to these individuals. Question so you haven't seen a phone directory that Mr. Epstein compiled? Answer not that I can recall. You mean a phone directory of what? Question. Containing names of people that were associated with Mr. Epstein? Answer just generally associated. I don't recall that, but I wouldn't be. What? It wouldn't surprise me. I wouldn't think that by itself it had evidentiary value other than that he knew a person. Question you mentioned earlier that the FBI continued to investigate the existence of possible co conspirators of Mr. Epstein. Could you just generally walk us through the investigative steps that DOJ took to pursue those co conspirators? Answer I mean, that was done by the Southern District. I mean the person in charge of the investigation was U. S. Attorney Jeff Berman and he had an experienced team and they would have. He would have, to the extent that there was any direction or judgments being made that required supervision, he would have made them, not me. Question did you have any visibility into subpoena that SDNY issued? Answer Visibility in the sense of approving them ahead of time. I don't recall approving subpoenas in that case. I don't recall issues coming up. To me, it's possible. I mean, a lot was coming in. Question and what about knowledge after the fact that they had been issued? Answer well, I think to the extent I read things that may have involved like that, I assume they got search warrants to collect stuff from the house and things like that. Question but you didn't get any direct information from SDNY regarding the issuance of subpoenas? Not that I can recall. Question and what about witness interviews? I think there was a dispute over Prince Andrew. Question okay, and how did you. HE INTERRUPTS HER not between me and the office, but between Prince Andrew and the Southern District. And I was aware of the dispute because I forgot how I became aware whether it was public or what. Question and what do you recall of the Dispute. Answer I think they wanted to talk to him and he wouldn't really submit to an interview. That's my recollection of what the dispute was over. Question and, and did you discuss that with the sdny? Answer no. I think after the fact, I think Berman went out and gave a pretty strong statement. I think he may have been standing in front of the house, as I recall, something to that effect. And it was about Andrew basically trying to say publicly that he was cooperating and in real fact he was not cooperating and I think I talked to him about that. Question Talk to. Answer after. After it was his question. Mr. Berman. Bar yeah. Question A number of prominent individuals have been alleged to be connected to Mr. Epstein as his clients or otherwise as associates. What I'd like to do is read to you a list of names and for each, I ask you to state whether to your knowledge that individual was within the scope of DOJ's investigation. If anything, DOJ determined with respect to the individual. Does that make sense? Answer yeah, but I mean, I don't know what within the scope of investigation means. Whether they were subjects or targets. Question how about witnesses, subjects or targets? O. Callahan, in an Epstein investigation that lasted for multiple decades, you're going to ask him if any of these individuals were ever somehow part of that investigation? Redacted Yeah. O Callahan, that's too broad. I don't think it actually comports with what was stated. The scope of this is. Okay, I can come at it in a different way. I'll just read the first name. Alan Dershowitz. Did Mr. Dershowitz, to your knowledge, ever become relevant to the Epstein investigation in any respect? The witness? I don't know. O'. Callaghan. And this is all bar I assumed I did not go and ask them who you're talking to. Now. That in itself sort of suggests they're targeting someone or even thinks someone is is a subject versus a witness and so forth. But I didn't get into that. I didn't go up to them and say, gee, are you looking into Dershowitz? Are you looking into Governor Richardson? Are you looking into George Mitchell? Are you looking at Donald Trump? Are you looking at Branson or whatever? I didn't do that. Well, maybe you should have. How about that Darth Barr? I saw names appearing in the media hyping all these so called connections. I did not ask them whether, but I assume that some of these people were examined. So you didn't discuss Alan Dershowitz with anyone else within doj? The witness? No, I obviously May have mentioned. May have discussed Dershowitz sifting around my office saying, wow, o'. Callaghan. That's part of the problem, is that there's so much media reporting. Witness. Right. O'. Callaghan. Media reporting on individuals that in common, workplace conversations, stuff like that happens. He just happens to be the Attorney General who. Of the United States. Bar I did not delve into the investigation of Epstein. Redacted. So. Bar, I let the investigators let the chips fall where they may. Redacted. Understood. So, again, just for the sake of clarity, apart from information that came to you through the media, what was publicly reported was, to your knowledge, Alan Dershowitz relevant to the investigation in any way? Bar. I don't know. I mean, these questions are a little bit too broad for my taste. O'. Callaghan. It's a very difficult thing you're asking him to do. Barr. Of course he's relevant to the investigation. You would think. Were there discussions within the DOJ about Alan Dershowitz, to your recollection? Barr As I say, sitting around my office, people could say, gee, Professor Dershowitz is in hot water. But I did not. I was not in communication with the SDNY about the handling of the investigation. O'. Callaghan. I mean, that might be an approach if SDNY ever briefed him. You know, these people are being targets of the investigation because sdny, as he testified to over and over again, was in charge of the investigation. So they were going to report. They would have reported an urgent matter to him. Bar I don't recall any discussion with SDNY where we discussed the nature and weight of evidence that they had against the individuals that, in my mind, had been identified publicly as people who could be involved in improper activities. I was told that the office had evidence in its possession that established that somebody was involved in those activities. I don't remember sitting down discussing, you know, gee, here's the weight of the evidence, or here's something that gives us leads we can pursue. I wasn't focused on, you know, myself looking at or hovering over the handling of that case. Question. Okay, so for the rest of the names, I will couch the question as follows. Did you ever become aware of each of these individuals either being a witness or subject or a target in the SDNY investigation? Answer. Become aware of. You had things published all the time. Question. Write Bar in the press. Question about their formal status in the DOJ investigation. I don't think that would be publicly reported. Okay. The formal status that was provided to me by the sdny. Yep. That's all I'm asking. Okay, so the next name is David Copperfield. I don't recall that being so. Michael Jackson. I don't recall that being so. Prince Andrew. Bar and when I say I don't recall, I mean my best recollection. I did not get that information. Question okay, answer. Go ahead. I mean, just read down the list. Oh, Callahan I think the question about Prince Andrew is pending. Bar that's right. I was aware of Prince Andrew's issue. You know, go through the list. I'll tell you. Oh, Callahan. So just to clarify, you're aware of Prince Andrew being sought as a witness by the Southern District? Bar yes.
- [26:29]
A
During Memorial Day at Lowe's shop Household must haves for less. Save 80 on a Char Broil Performance Series 4 burner grill to chef up something special. Plus get up to 45 off select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Lowe's we help you save valid through 527 while supplies last selection varies by location. See lowe's.com for details.
- [26:52]
B
Visit your nearby Lowe's. And any dispute over him cooperating. I was aware of that. Question Bill Clinton. Bar Same answer. Question. Bill Richardson. Answer same answer. Question George Mitchell. Same answer Question Glenn Dubin. Same answer. Bill Gates. Same answer Question Leon Black. Same answer. QUESTION okay, now, Jasmine Crockett interrupts. Just to clarify, when you're saying same answer, is that the same answer as Prince Andrew or is that the same answer as the prior? Because the witness, the ones other than that. Crockett. They were different. Witness other than Prince Andrew. Crockett okay, just to be clear for the record, and really, really quickly, I'm going to jump in just before we have to wrap because we're talking about the investigations. Maxwell was investigated during your tenure, not necessarily taken to trial while you were still at the doj. She is someone that was involved in the SDNY situation. You are aware that she was not born in this country, correct? Bar yes. CROCKETT okay. You are also aware that a jury of her peers found her guilty of five out of six counts that were brought against her by the sdny, including child sex trafficking conspiracy, correct? Bar yes. CROCKETT in addition to that, you have been made aware through public reports. Well, let me clarify this. Child sex trafficking is not considered to be a low level offense in the federal government, correct? I'm not sure what low level means, but it's a serious offense. It's definitely a felony, correct? Oh, yes. And a person can face up to life imprisonment for it, correct? I haven't looked at the statute, but that wouldn't surprise me. CROCKETT okay. And typically when someone is classified by the time that they enter into the Bureau of Prisons, their classification is usually based upon a multitude of things, one of them being how serious of an offense a person has been found guilty of. Correct? WITNESS that's one of the factors. CROCKETT okay, in addition to their criminal history and other things. But long story short, they are looking at whether or not the person is potentially a danger to the community, correct? BAR that's another factor. CROCKETT when you are reading your public things, I'm assuming you've heard that there has been a transfer approved for Ms. Maxwell to a minimum security prison camp. Are you aware of that? O' Callahan? You referring to press reports? Congresswoman CROCKETT yes, because that. BAR I've seen. CROCKETT that would be the only way Barr says I've seen those reports. CROCKETT during your tenure as Attorney General, during either time, I'm curious to know, are you ever, is it ever within your recollection that there was someone who had been convicted, finally convicted? Well, I guess it's not final. She's still on appeal. Convicted of five counts of child sex trafficking. And they somehow ended up transferred to a minimum security prison camp? BAR I mean, off the top of my head, I can't remember a situation like that. JASMINE CROCKETT in fact, you'd agree with me that in order for someone to be transferred under those types of circumstances, it would actually take a higher level of approval. That is not something that just any low level BOP person would be able to do, correct? BAR I wish that were correct. You never know. CROCKETT because mistakes happen. BAR yeah, sometimes you wake up and you find that something's happened. Like taking someone off suicide watch. CROCKETT but you would agree with me that the policy in general is not to put someone who's been convicted of those types of crimes into a minimum security camp. BAR actually, I think the way the system works is the political level usually allows the Bureau of Prisons to broad leeway in determining how people are handled under their structure and using their criteria. And if they disagree, they might intervene. CROCKETT Understood. BAR that's how I think the system generally operates. CROCKETT Understood. To the best your knowledge, whether it's during your tenure or during reports. She's never been in the type of facility in the last four years of her incarceration until now, correct? BAR I gather that's the case. CROCKETT okay, thanks. All right, we're gonna wrap up right here and we're gonna pick up where we left off in the next episode. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with Bill Barr and his deposition. Chairman Comer Chair General Barr, may I jump in for a couple of questions? Were you aware of the involvement of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign and the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? Barr to the extent it was determined by Durham, Yes. Durham was looking into that. Comer did you review documents that indicated the involvement of former Secretary Clinton in the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? Bar Did I look at documents? Yes. Bar yes. To the best of your recollection, did you at any point attempted to declassify items in the Russia collusion investigation? Bar Some items declassified and some I opposed declassifying. Okay. Were you aware of the involvement of President Obama or his officials in the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? I was aware of meetings held at the end of the Obama administration. They were described. And did you review any documents? I think I saw a set of notes taken by an intelligence official perhaps. Okay. Alright, thank you, sir. And much like disclaimer at the beginning of the minority hour, I might ask some similar questions this hour, but we're going to start back with Mr. Epstein's death and some of the irregularities within the jail. We talked about the missed institutional counts and observations. And the two guards, two corrections officers, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, were eventually indicted for falsifying those records. Were you involved in that indictment? I was. I think it was passed by me. I think I was informed as to what they were going to do. Question I think they eventually entered a plea agreement. Bar. Yep. Question and the case was otherwise dropped. Were you involved in that at all? Bar I think people described it to me, I think before it happened, yeah. Question but much like some of the Epstein investigation, you're not involved in the prosecutorial decisions on whether or not Barr cuts them off. Right. Question. To take the case on the institutional counts, my understanding of these is that at set intervals, corrections officers need to go through their area of responsibility and just do a count of the inmates to make sure that everyone is accounted for. Is that a fair summary of that? The count process? Yes. And they report the counts? I think. Is it? I forgot how frequently they report the counts, but they call in the counts. Question from the indictment at least they were responsible for counts at 4pm, 10pm, 12am, 3am and 5am does that sound right? Sounds right. And then to the best of your recollection, were these institutional counts done by those officers? I can't remember if one of them was done, but they generally were not done. And then you testified earlier, but the officers falsified the records, is that correct? Yes. Moving to the 30 minute rounds, again, my understanding of the rounds we were that they were directed by the psych department and the medical department because Mr. Epstein was coming off suicide watch and coming off kind of the more enhanced observation. Is that correct? Answer yes. I'm not sure if it was. I think that's part and parcel of this level of scrutiny. Question like the step down from suicide watch? Answer yes. Question and my understanding again is that they would have conducted this twice an hour. Once the first 30 minutes, once in the second at irregular intervals and at least 40 minutes apart. Does that sound right? Answer yes. Question to your recollection? Answer to my knowledge, yes. Question to the best of your recollection, were these 30 minute rounds done? Answer I believe that's why they were prosecuted for not doing them and lying about it. And then to your recall, the officers falsified the records? Yes, I believe you said it, and I know I have. But I want to ask directly, were those 30 minute rounds specific to Mr. Epstein? I believe they were specific to anyone who warrants that kind of level of watch. I don't know who else did in that shoe. Question. So that was my next question. Do you recall if anyone on L block required 30 minute observation or even in 9 south? I don't know. There was. I can introduce if you need me to, but there was a sign on the SHU officer's desk that read, mandatory rounds must be conducted every 30 minutes on Epstein, as per God. And as per God, I'm assuming it was a joke for the warden or something. Right. Do you recall hearing about that sign after the fact, prior to your departure and as Attorney General? I can't remember. And what do you recall any discussion regarding that sign? It may have been part of the case. In other words, that it was clear to them that it was a priority to conduct those rounds. As to Epstein, part of the case against Noel and Thomas? Yes, we've gone through all of the kind of major irregularities. After you learned of these, did you take any disciplinary action against anyone involved? It could be referred to as disciplinary. I think on the very day I was informed of his death, I started reaching out to find the old management of BOP that I was familiar with and had always considered to be, you know, fantastic managers of BoP. So I started lining them up because I intended to see if I could bring them in. And then within days, I think maybe very quickly, I reassigned the warden and I replaced, I think the following had the people come in to interview within a few days with the job. And then I think within a week I moved out the head of BOP and put in new people. Question and appointed a new deputy BOP director. Yes, both the top and the deputy. And that was all done within a week. And I left the other discipline up to them to meet out. Question they would be the ones that place the two guards on leave. Answer I don't know. I think they were probably put on leave right away. Answer okay, but further discipline in figuring out, you know, who was responsible for what oversight. But I think there was no question. They admitted it right up front that they screwed up, as they said. Question that they were asleep at the desk. Answer yeah, question. Question Was there, to your knowledge, was there a larger investigation into whether or not these issues were systemic at MCC or if they were isolated to Epstein? I actually can't answer that authoritatively. I think BOP does a lot of investigations of the BOP and I think maybe their report on this incident says this was not new news. I mean this is a problem. Question uh huh. I think BoP, you know, has gone downhill in terms of of its professional, you know, its management structure and professionalism. Part of that is the nature of the job and especially in big cities, the pay rate and so forth, it's hard to get good people. Question mcc, I believe, is now closed. I think it was closed after I left. Yeah. Question it was after you left. Well, I stopped new prisoners from going in. I believe that's what I did. And I think I redirected them to Brooklyn and mdc. Question thank you. I'm going to ask a few questions about the individual cases similar to what my colleagues asked and I might have some follow ups based off those questions. You testified a little bit. You know, I want to quote it as best as possible that you wanted to let investigators let the chips fall where they may. In other words, not involve yourself too heavily in the 2019 prosecution. Answer investigation. Question Investigation in general. And then you said that I want to get it right that it's DOJ policy to bring to the Attorney General's attention if a prominent person was going to be the subject of an investigation. Is that a fair summary of what the policy is? Answer yes, it's called urgent reports. I think they have to file an urgent report. Question. Did the Southern District of New York ever file an urgent report regarding the Epstein case
- [39:58]
A
during Memorial Day at Lowe's Household must haves for less. Save $80 on a Char Broil Performance Series 4 burner grill to chef up something special plus get up to 45% off. Select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Lowe's we help you save valid through 527 while supplies last selection varies by location. See lowe's.com for details.
- [40:21]
B
Visit your nearby Lowe's. I can't remember. I don't remember what they did. But you know, certainly I was never informed by them that they were focused, you know, that they believed they had a predicate to actually investigate the individual. Question. And pardon me, I don't know. Answer. Other than Maxwell and Epstein. Question. I don't know the actual like formal designations, but they wouldn't have to. Would they have to issue a formal report if they wanted to interview someone as a witness that was a prominent individual or just if that prominent individual was going to become a suspect or a target in the investigation? Answer I don't think it was that refined. I think they had to use their rule of common sense as to what would the national leadership of the department want to know about. And just to interject real quick, you see what he's saying right here, right? That the bosses have to know. So taking that and bringing it over to what happened with Acosta, what does it tell you? Question. Huh? Answer. And you know, if they decided, you know, had some predicate to actually pursue an individual, you know, moving into the potential area of a target, they would have to do an urgent report. Yeah. Question. And to the best, like out of this list that the minority read to you, the one that you were called elevating witness, suspect or target was Prince Andrew. Answer. I don't know if he was a target and you know, I guess to my knowledge he was at least a witness. Question. Uh huh. I don't know if it went beyond that, but you know, that's somebody who in real time I understood they were trying to get in the door to question. Question. Understanding again what you said you don't recall specific urgent reports being filed with you. Would that have been someone that met the criteria of a prominent person? Answer in my mind. Question. And I'll ask specifically to him. Do you recall whether or not you got an urgent report? They're cut off by bar and it could affect foreign relations and so forth. It's a sensible rule. Now, is it always followed by U.S. attorneys? No, there are many that sit. Not many, but there's sometimes the case where you don't get a rapport for something that you should have been. And the SDNY is relatively well known for playing its cards very close to the vest. Question and again, to the best of your recollection, you never got an urgent report regarding Prince Andrew? Answer, I don't recall. Quite possibly, but I don't recall that. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box
- [43:04]
A
during Memorial Day at Lowe's Shop Household must haves for less save $80 on a char broil performance series 4 burner grill to chef up something special plus get up to 45% off select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Lowe's we help you save valid through 527, while supplies last selection varies by location. See lowe's.com for details.
- [43:28]
B
Visit your nearby Lowe's.