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

Summary

Podcast Episode Summary

Podcast: The Epstein Chronicles
Host: Bobby Capucci
Episode: Howard Lutnick And The Transcript From His Epstein Related Congressional Hearing (Part 1)
Date: May 14, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Bobby Capucci dives into the newly released transcript of Howard Lutnick’s deposition before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee, led by Chairman James Comer, is investigating Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the extensive web of influence and protection that surrounded their criminal activities. Capucci walks listeners through the structure of the hearing, introduces the key participants, and highlights Lutnick’s opening statement, which frames his relationship with Epstein as minimal and inconsequential.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Purpose and Setup of the Congressional Hearing

(Timestamp: 00:12 - 03:40)

• The committee’s investigation targets Epstein, Maxwell, their sex trafficking rings, the mechanisms of influence they employed, and ethical violations implicating public officials.
• The hearing is not about criminal prosecution, but rather fact-finding for oversight purposes.
• Bobby Capucci comments on procedural formalities, noting:

  “This dude needs three lawyers to do a deposition about somebody he only met three times, according to him.” (02:31, Capucci)

2. Establishing Ground Rules

(03:40 - 07:43)

• Chief Counsel Jack Emmer methodically explains the questioning process, expectations for candor, requirements for audible responses, and legal obligations—even though Lutnick is not under oath.
• Capucci offers pointed commentary on the ease with which high-profile witnesses are handled:

  “Not even sworn in. You guys catching on yet? It’s all a big fucking joke. That’s all it is to these people, but not to us and not to the vast majority...” (05:52, Capucci)

• The committee clarifies consequences for perjury or incomplete answers and outlines the process for asserting privilege.

3. Howard Lutnick’s Opening Statement

(08:13 - 13:35)

• Lutnick begins with a strong condemnation of Epstein and expresses support for the survivors.
• He stresses his presence is voluntary and that his interactions with Epstein were virtually non-existent.
• Key facts from his statement:
  • Purchased his NYC townhouse in 1997; next door to Epstein.
  • Moved in 2005 after delays (notably due to 9/11).
  • First encounter in 2005: Invited to Epstein’s home for coffee with his wife; left abruptly after an inappropriate remark by Epstein.

    “He made a crude and gross remark in my wife’s presence, which caused us to cut the visit short and leave immediately.” (09:35, Lutnick)

  • Second encounter (2011): Epstein's staff tried to arrange a meeting about building scaffolding, but the meeting was brief and “inconsequential.”
  • Third encounter (late 2012): Epstein’s staff somehow learned of Lutnick’s Caribbean holiday; brief lunch with two families, described as “meaningless.”

    “As far as I recall, it was about scaffolding. It was meaningless and inconsequential.” (10:50, Lutnick)

  • Lutnick and his wife agreed after the first meeting to keep distance from Epstein.
  • He insists he never witnessed suspicious or criminal conduct.

4. Host Commentary and Episode Wrap-Up

(13:35 - end)

• Capucci indicates this is just the first portion of the deposition and more details will be discussed in the next episode.
• Encourages listeners to check the description box for supporting materials and documents.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Capucci, on the presence of three lawyers:

  “This dude needs three lawyers to do a deposition about somebody he only met three times, according to him.” (02:31)

• Capucci, on the voluntary nature and lack of swearing-in:

  “Not even sworn in. You guys catching on yet? It’s all a big fucking joke. That’s all it is to these people, but not to us and not to the vast majority...” (05:52)

• Lutnick, on his first encounter with Epstein:

  “He made a crude and gross remark in my wife’s presence, which caused us to cut the visit short and leave immediately.” (09:35)

• Lutnick, reinforcing limited contact:

  “Each and every one of those was meaningless and inconsequential.” (11:48)
  “I had no personal or professional relationship with this individual, despite the proximity of our addresses.” (12:30)

• Lutnick, on never witnessing misconduct:

  “At no time during these limited interactions did I witness any conduct, let alone any type of illegal conduct of which we have since become aware.” (12:41)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:12 – Capucci introduces episode and congressional hearing transcript
• 02:01 – Introduction of Lutnick’s legal counsel and committee staff
• 03:41 – Emmer outlines hearing ground rules
• 05:12 – Explicit warning about truthful testimony and perjury
• 08:13 – Lutnick begins opening statement
• 09:35 – Lutnick describes inappropriate remark from Epstein
• 10:50 – Lutnick details brief encounters in 2011 and 2012
• 12:41 – Lutnick asserts no witnessed illegal behavior
• 13:35 – Capucci wraps up and teases next episode

---

Tone & Language

• Capucci: Direct, skeptical, irreverent toward elite privilege and committee formalities, determined to highlight hypocrisy and lack of real accountability.
• Lutnick (in transcript): Formal, measured, repeatedly distancing himself from Epstein, heavily emphasizing minimal contact and lack of personal relationship.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the government’s attempts to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein operated with impunity and curated relationships with those in power. Lutnick’s testimony, as discussed and dissected by Capucci, underscores the persistent questions and suspicions: How many powerful people knew more than they admitted? Were critical probes deliberately soft? The next episode promises more in-depth examination of Lutnick's answers and further committee questions.

Transcript

[A]

Now with McDonald's. Wake up to a $4 breakfast meal deal. Wake up to a sausage McMuffin or sausage biscuit to hash browns and wake up to a hot coffee. Get your $4 breakfast meal deal.

[B]

Limited time only. Prices and participation may vary. Prices may be higher for delivery. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to begin taking a look at the Howard Lutnick transcripts from the deposition in front of Congress. Mr. Emmer will go on the record. This is a transcribed interview of Secretary Howard W. Lutnick conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under the authority granted to it pursuant to House Rule 10. Accordingly, House Rule 10 grants the Committee Board jurisdiction for the committee to conduct investigations of any matter at any time. This interview is requested by Chairman James Comer as part of the committee's investigation and into the circumstances and subsequent investigation into the circumstances and subsequent investigations and the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell. The operation of the sex trafficking rings and ways for the government to effectively combat them. The ways in which Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell sought to curry favor and exercise influence to protect their illegal activities and potential violations of ethic rules related to elected officials. Can the witness please state his name and spell his last name for the record? Secretary Lutnick. Howard Lutnick. L U T N I C K. Mr. Emmer. Thank you. I want to thank Secretary Lutnick for appearing voluntarily here today. My name is Jack Emmer and I'm the chief counsel for investigations for Chairman James Comer. Under the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform rules, you're allowed to have counsel present to advise you during the interview. Do you have counsel representing you present with you today? Lutnick. Yeah.

[C]

Emmer.

[B]

Will counsel please identify themselves for the record? Mr. Telweger, who is the lawyer for Lutnick? Zach Terwilger, a partner at Vinson and Elkins law firm. Another Lawyer pops up. Mr. Crowley. Michael Crowley, Associate. Vincent and Elkins. Another lawyer, Mr. Mayeron. Austin Mayeron, Department of Commerce. This dude needs three lawyers to do a deposition about somebody he only met three times, according to him. Okay, Mr. Emmer, thank you. For the record, starting with the majority staff, can the additional staff members please introduce themselves with their name, title and affiliation? Mr. Grant. Billy Grant, Deputy Chief Counsel for Investigations. Chairman Comer. Peter Spector, Director of Oversight for Chairman Comer. Ellison Tolan, Council Chairman Comer. Hannah Cathy, professional staff member. Chairman Comer. Emily Firebend, counsel for Chairman Comer. Brittany Brignac, Senior Counsel Chairman Comer. Mr. Ashworth. Daniel Ashworth, general counsel for Chairman Comer. Will harness professional staff member for Chairman Comer. Ashley Vineyard, deputy staff director for Chairman Comer. Jessica Collins, communications director for Comer. And then the next names were redacted. Mr. Emmer, thank you. We have members of Congress present today, starting with the chairman. Can the majority members intro and and then the minority members. James Comer, Kentucky. William Timmons, South Carolina.

[C]

Emmer.

[B]

Thank you. Secretary Lutnick. Before we weigh in, I would like to go over the ground rules for this interview. The questioning will proceed in rounds. The majority will ask questions for up to an hour, and then the minority will have an opportunity to ask questions for up to an hour if they choose. To the extent members have questions for the witness, they will be propounded during their sides respective rounds. The clock will stop before you need to confer with your council. Your council speaking and when members are speaking during the opposing side's rounds of questions, we will alternate back and forth until there are no more questions. Do you understand, Secretary Lutnick?

[C]

I do, Emmer.

[B]

There is a court reporter taking down everything I say and everything you say to make a written record all of the interview for the record. To be clear, please wait until the staffer questioning you finishes each question before you begin your answer. And the staffer will wait until you finish your response before proceeding to the next round. Further, to ensure that the court reporter can properly record the interview, please speak clearly, concisely and slowly. Also, the court reporter cannot record nonverbal answers such as nodding or shaking your head. So it's important that you answer each question with an audible verbal answer. Exhibits may be entered into the record. Majority exhibits will be identified numerically. Minority exhibits will be identified alphabetically. Do you understand, Lutnick?

[C]

I do, Emmer.

[B]

We want you to answer our questions in the most complete and truthful manner possible. So we'll take our time. If you have any questions or or you don't fully understand the question, please let us know. We will attempt to clarify, add context, or rephrase our questions. If we ask about specific conversations or events in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words or details, you should testify to the substance of those conversations or events to the best of your recollection. If you recall only part of a conversation or event, you should give us your best recollection of of those events or parts of conversations that you do recall. Do you understand, Lutnick?

[C]

I do, Emmer.

[B]

Although you're here voluntarily and you'll not be Sworn in. You're required by law pursuant to title 18 of the United States Code, section 1001, to answer questions from Congress truthfully. Not even sworn in. You guys catching on yet? It's all a big fucking joke. That's all it is to these people, but not to us and not to the vast majority of people out there that are paying attention. And this also applies to questions posed by congressional staff in the interview. Do you understand? Lutnick? I do.

[C]

Emmer.

[B]

If at any time you knowingly make false statements, you could be subject to criminal prosecution. Do you understand? Lutnick?

[C]

I do, Emmer.

[B]

This includes both knowingly providing false testimony, but but also stating that you do not recall or remember something when in fact you do. Do you understand? Lutnick?

[C]

I do, Emmer.

[B]

Furthermore, you cannot tell half truths or exclude information necessary to make statements accurate. You are required to provide all information that would make your response truthful. A deliberate failure to disclose information can constitute a false statement. Do you understand? Lutnick? I do. Emer. Is there any reason that you're unable to provide truthful testimony in today's interview? Lutnick?

[C]

No, Emmer.

[B]

Please note that if you wish to assert a privilege over any statement today, that assertion must comply with the rules of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Pursuant to that Committee Rule 16, for the chair to consider assertions of privilege over testimony or statements, witnesses or entities must clearly state the specific privilege being asserted and the reason for the assertion on or before the scheduled date of testimony or appearance. Do you understand? Secretary Lutnick?

[C]

I do, Emmer.

[B]

Ordinarily, we take a five minute break at the end of each hour of questioning. But if you need a longer break or a break before that, please let us know and we'll be happy to accommodate at. However, to the extent that there is a pending question, we would ask you to finish answering the question before we take a break. Do you understand? Lutnick? I do.

[C]

Emmer.

[B]

Do you have any other questions before we begin? Let Nick know. Emmer, do you have an opening statement that you would like to read?

[C]

I do, Emmer.

[B]

You may proceed. Lutnick. Chairman Comer, members of the committee and committee staff, I unequivocally condemn the conduct attributed to Jeffrey Epstein and everyone who participated in his illegal activities. The survivors of his crimes deserve our respect and support. I voluntarily agreed to appear and answer questions in connection with this committee's investigation. I would like to begin by briefly describing my virtually non existent interactions with this individual who lived adjacent to my New York city home in 1997, I purchased an unfinished townhouse as my family home in New York City. Renovations took several more years than expected due to the events of September 11th terrorist attacks and their impact on me, my family and all my co workers in the World trade Center. Approximately eight years after our purchase in 2005, my family and I finally moved into our new home, which happened to be adjacent to his residence. Shortly thereafter, my wife and I were invited by that individual to his residence for coffee. During this brief interaction that included my wife, me and this individual, he made a crude and gross remark in my wife's presence, which caused us to cut the visit short and leave immediately following that brief initial meeting as as we walk back to our home, my wife and I discussed the encounter and that given his clear lack of boundaries, I would never establish a personal or professional relationship with him. And that is exactly what I did following this 2005 interaction. My only other two interactions with Epstein over the ensuring ensuing 14 years were both meaningless and inconsequential. My second interaction occurred six years later in 2011 when his staff initiated contact with my office, suggesting he had a reason to get in touch with me. Our offices attempted to connect us by phone over the course of several weeks, but we were unable to do so. Ultimately, to the best of my recollection, his staff indicated he would be in his residence on a particular weekend afternoon and my staff arranged for me to ring his bell during my and my wife's typical Sunday walk around around the block with our dogs. Dear what he had to Say My best recollection is I rang the bell, sat in his foyer with my dog, waited for him to come down, heard what he had to say, and I left. As far as I recall, it was about scaffolding. It was meaningless and inconsequential. Next some 18 months later in late 2012, his staff inexplicably contacted my office unprompted regarding my family's planned holiday travel to the Caribbean. Unbeknownst to me, his staff somehow had become aware that my family and I would be near his island over the holidays, although they were apparently unsure whether that meant during the Thanksgiving or Christmas holiday. I still have no idea how his staff discovered my family's vacation plans or why their pursuit arranging a visit with me. From what I have since learned it it appears he was initially seeking a meeting with just me. My wife made clear, however, that we had a large traveling party of approximately 12 plus people and if we were to come, it would be with everyone. My family of six and another family of six had a brief, meaningless and inconsequential lunch and then left. To the best of my recollection, those were the only three occasions in which I interacted with Epstein in person. Each and every one of those was meaningless and inconsequential. To put this in perspective, Epstein lived in the house next door to my family for 14 years, and in that time I interacted with him in person only three times. Again, each meaningless and inconsequential. I had no personal or professional relationship with this individual, despite the proximity of our addresses. Further, at no time during these limited interactions did I witness any conduct, let alone any type of illegal conduct of which we have since become aware. In closing, after our first interaction, my wife and I discussed that I would not establish a personal or professional relationship with that individual. On a podcast on October 2025, I informally recounted that conversation. What I said on that podcast regarding my conversation was with my wife was correct. I did not establish a personal or professional relationship with that individual. The documents in my prior testimony confirm that I am here to answer your questions. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.