Howard Lutnick And The Transcript From His Epstein Related Congressional Hearing (Part 6) (5/16/26) - The Epstein Chronicles

Summary6 min read

Podcast Summary: The Epstein Chronicles

Episode: Howard Lutnick And The Transcript From His Epstein Related Congressional Hearing (Part 6)

Host: Bobby Capucci
Date: May 16, 2026

Overview

In this episode, Bobby Capucci examines a detailed segment from the congressional deposition of Howard Lutnick, CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, regarding his limited and uncomfortable interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. The discussion zeroes in on Lutnick’s recollections of an early encounter at Epstein’s residence, the subsequent decision with his wife to avoid any personal, professional, or philanthropic relationships with Epstein, and the semantics of statements made both at the time and years later in interviews and podcasts. The episode spotlights Lutnick’s careful parsing of his words in public testimony and attempts to clarify his association or lack thereof with Epstein after a disturbing initial meeting.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Lutnick’s Initial Encounter with Jeffrey Epstein

Lutnick describes an awkward conversation during a visit to Epstein’s home, including Epstein making off-putting remarks about massages in front of Lutnick and his wife.
- Quote:
  
  “Massage table in the middle of your house. How often do you have a massage? And he says every day. And then he gets like really close, like weirdly close to me. And he says, and the right kind of massage.” — Lutnick, recounting the encounter (01:00)
Lutnick confirms the general accuracy of these statements, noting the recollection is approximate and somewhat embellished for storytelling.

2. Immediate Aftermath — Deciding to Avoid Epstein

Lutnick and his wife quickly leave Epstein’s house after the awkward conversation, deciding privately to avoid Epstein in the future.
- Quote:
  
  “And in the six or eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I’ll never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.” — Lutnick, relaying the sentiment after leaving (03:11)
Lutnick emphasizes this was a thematic, not literal, pledge—reflecting their intent to steer clear of Epstein, not a legalistic vow to never physically be in the same room.

3. Parsing of Words — The “Never in the Room” Statement

Much of the deposition and this podcast episode focuses on Lutnick’s statements about subsequent contact with Epstein.
- Lutnick distinguishes between being in the same physical room as Epstein (with other people present) versus intentionally building any sort of relationship with him (social, business, philanthropic).
  - Quote:
    
    “I would not establish a personal and professional relationship with them and I would avoid him. So it was basically a conversation with me and my wife that says avoid. We came to the discussion to have avoid, which I did.” (05:33)
Lutnick points out that, although he did see Epstein twice more over the course of 20 years, these were unintended or incidental contacts, not social interactions initiated by Lutnick.

4. Literal vs. Intended Meaning in Testimony and Public Statements

Repeated clarifications about what Lutnick meant when he said “I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy”:
- Lutnick insists these statements were meant to describe his intent and actions—not to strictly claim he never physically shared a space with Epstein, but rather that he deliberately avoided any meaningful engagement.
  - Quote:
    
    “It's not literally that. I did not say that. I was not intending to say that I was literally never singularly in the room with him, including with other people like my wife and my children. That's not what I was saying.” (10:40)
Lutnick draws a careful semantic line between being present with Epstein among others (which happened, e.g., at a lunch with families present) and having any kind of direct, voluntary relationship (which he denies).

5. The Lunch on Epstein’s Island

Lutnick confirms there was a subsequent lunch on Epstein’s island with his wife, family, and another couple—characterizing it as “a meaningless and inconsequential social lunch” with no ongoing relationship.
- Quote:
  
  “I would describe a lunch with my wife and my family and the other couple in their family. Yeah, I would describe that as a social lunch. Meaningless and inconsequential social lunch. I agree.” (16:50)
Lutnick maintains this lunch does not, in his view, contradict his earlier statements, as his wife and family were present and he never sought out Epstein’s company.

6. Concluding Clarifications and Persistent Avoidance

Lutnick ends with repeated assertions that he was personally (not collectively) vowing avoidance, and his statements should not be interpreted as a literal, unbroken physical separation from Epstein, but as a principled separation from any social, business, or philanthropic involvement.
- Quote:
  
  “I didn’t say we would never. I said I would never.” (19:45)
The deposition closes on Lutnick’s insistence that his story as told on podcasts and interviews—though not verbatim or legally precise—captures the spirit and truth of his relationship (or lack thereof) with Epstein.

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

On the initial disturbing encounter:
“Massage table in the middle of your house… he gets like really close, like weirdly close to me… and the right kind of massage.” — Lutnick (01:00)
Aftermath with his wife:
“We say, I’m sorry, we have to go. And we left… My wife and I decided that I’ll never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.” (03:11)
On avoidance:
“I would not establish a personal and professional relationship with them and I would avoid him. So it was basically a conversation with me and my wife that says avoid. We came to the discussion to have avoid, which I did.” (05:33)
Literal versus intended meaning:
“It was trying to tell a story and be descriptive, which I thought was an accurate description… I did not establish a personal or professional relationship with him. I avoided him…” (09:25)
Conclusion and clarification:
“I was never Howard Lutnick—I was never in the room with him socially for business or philanthropy, alone, in a situation where I could be at all with a person who I found inappropriate. So that’s correct.” (11:41)
On the ‘social lunch’ with Epstein:
“Yeah, I would describe that as a social lunch. Meaningless and inconsequential social lunch. I agree.” (16:50)
On the distinction between ‘I’ and ‘we’:
“I didn’t say we would never. I said I would never.” (19:45)

Structure of the Episode

[00:15] Opening introduction and setup by Bobby Capucci
[01:00–05:33] Lutnick recounts initial encounter and decision to cut off Epstein
[05:33–09:25] Parsing the literal truth versus narrative intent of his statements
[09:25–11:41] Detailed examination of what “never in the room” means
[11:41–16:50] Confirmation and discussion of rare later encounters, including the lunch
[16:50–19:45] Final clarifications and Lutnick’s defense of his retelling
[19:45] Episode wrap-up

Episode Tone

The episode maintains the thorough, relentless, and uncompromising tone for which The Epstein Chronicles is known. Capucci leans on Lutnick’s own words to break down not only facts but the intent and precision (or lack thereof) with which powerful figures recount their relationships with Epstein. Lutnick is careful, direct, sometimes defensive, but consistently maintains that avoidance of further association with Epstein was both decided and followed.

End of Summary.

Loading summary

Transcript2 lines

[00:00]
A
Most people would rather attend a corporate team building workshop than search for auto and home insurance. Go team. Feel that synergy. That's why the zebra searches for you. Comparing over 100 insurance companies to find savings no one else can Compare. Today@thezebra.com who's ready for the trust fall?
[00:15]
B
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 the Howard Lutnick deposition. Question. Okay, I. And then you said, quote, so I asked very insightful cutting questions. I say to him, massage table in the middle of your house. How often do you have a massage? And he says every day. And then he gets like really close, like weirdly close to me. And he says, and the right kind of massage. I'll stop there. Is that statement accurate to the best of your recollection? Answer well, I'm being sarcastic when I say I asked very insightful cutting questions on I'm just kidding. And it's generally right. I'm not saying it's exact precisely right, but generally, yeah, that's what I recall. As far as you remember, are any of these details sort of embellishments, like do you recall him actually getting weirdly close to you? I think that's right. I think that's right what I said. Question alright. And then you said, now my wife is standing there, so she looks at me and I look at her and we say, I'm sorry, we have to go. And we left. I'll stop right there. Do you recall that happening? Answer well, I don't. I recall a sense of that. I don't recall exactly saying those words, but I certainly recall a sense of that. That we decided we had to go. Question do you recall a verbal exchange to the effect or more of a general sense? Answer I don't recall the precise nature of the words. A general sense that we excused ourselves and that's what I was going to ask. Is that the sort of cutoff the tore early as far as you can remember? Yes. Did Mr. Epstein have any particular reaction to you sort of abruptly excusing yourself? Not that I recall. Did you give a particular reason for needing to excuse yourself? I don't remember anything other than we decided to excuse ourselves. Question and you said, quote and in the six or eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I'll never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again. I'll stop right there. Is it true that before you got back to your home, you and your wife decided that you would never be in the same room as Mr. Epstein again. Answer. I think the meaning of that is right, which is what we discussed, that I would not put myself in a situation with him again, that I would not have a personal or professional relationship with them, and I would avoid him. That was the point of the discussion. It was an informal conversation that I'm recalling 20 years later, but the point of it was right. Question. And so that is what I'd like to do is separate the theme or the idea from the literal accuracy of the specific words. So when you say my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with. With that disgusting person again, is it. It's not necessarily a literal decision that you will never allow yourself to be in the room with them again. It's just you don't want to build a relationship with them. Is that it? Answer. I would not establish a personal and professional relationship with them and I would avoid him. So it was basically a conversation with me and my wife that says avoid. We came to the discussion to have avoid, which I did. Question Was it, as far as you can remember, a decision that, as you described it, if I see him in a room in the future, I will not be in that room. Was it that level or was that an embellishment or some sort of extra language? Answer. Remember, It's a podcast 20 years later that I'm trying to make a point that I. And I didn't, by the way, I avoided having a personal and professional relationship with him. I avoided him. So I think I was right. I think the point of the podcast is right. What I'd said was right. I avoided him, and I never put myself in a situation with him again. Personally, me, as a man, he had no boundaries. I avoided him. Question. Yeah. So the question of what the interactions were later, in the future, after the tour, we'll walk through those. You've done some of that. I was just trying to get a really clear sense of what you recall the discussion being on the day of the tour. It sounds like. But please, you tell me. Well, was it. It's not that it was a literal decision to never be in the same physical room again, because that's what the words say. But I think you're saying it's not literally accurate. Answer. It was a podcast and I said in the next words. That's my story. So it was the podcast I was describing, 20 years later, a conversation I had with my wife. It was informal. It wasn't trying to be literal. It was trying to tell a story and be descriptive, which I thought was an accurate description, which was what? I would avoid establishing a professional and personal relationship with him. I would avoid him and I did. So it says I will never I wasn't I wouldn't say it was literal, meaning I was he did tell me something in the foyer while I had my dog. But the point of it, I think, was accurate, actually, and literally the way I live, which was that I did not establish a personal or professional relationship with him. I avoided him and I saw him two other times in the whole in my whole life. Two other times. That's it. So the next part says, so I was never in the room with him socially for business or even philanthropy. Is that statement true? Answer yes. Question so is it your testimony that you were never physically in a room with Jeffrey Epstein after the day of that tour? Answer Again, this was differentiating me so that I would not put myself, Howard Lutnick, in a position with him, to be alone with him. So I was with my wife, with him, as I described earlier today at a lunch on the island seven years later. And I did listen to him tell me about scaffolding in his foyer. But I was not those were not social engagements with them by me, business engagements with them by me, or philanthropic engagements with them and me as a person. I think that is accurate. Questions so I'm focused on the single sentence and I'll read it back. Quote, so I was never in the room with him socially for business or even philanthropy. So is it your testimony that that sentence is, in a literal sense, accurate? Answer it's accurate as to what I meant, which is I, Howard Lutnick as a man, would not be in a room or a situation with him because I felt them gross and inappropriate and not having boundaries that I would not put myself in a room with him socially. Would not, which I did not. Professionally and business, which I did not, and philanthropy, which I did not. I have described in detail the only two times I saw him. And they were not social, they were not business, and they were not philanthropic for me. I had lunch with them, with my wife and family, which I have described in detail, but that was not me putting myself with them, which is what I said and which is the point that I tried to make. Question and so is it that you agree you were in the room with them, full stop, but you don't believe either of those instances you've described qualify as being social or for business or for philanthropy and that's how the sentence ends up being accurate for you. This is me talking. The point I made was that as a man, I would not put myself. And that's the discussion with my wife, right? It's an informal discussion with. With my wife as we walked away from his home where he said something inappropriate and we discussed that I would put myself or not put myself in a circumstance with him and I would avoid him. And so I did. I avoided him. I was never Howard Lutnick. I was never in the room with him socially for business or philanthropy, alone, in a situation where I could be at all with a person who I found inappropriate. So that's correct. It's not literally that. I did not say that. I was not intending to say that. I was literally never singularly in the room with him, including with other people like my wife and my children. That's not what I was saying. I was saying that I would never put myself in a position that would be with him alone. Why would I do that? And I said wouldn't and didn't. So I thought that was accurate. Question. So from your point of view, just as a reader of a very simple, straightforward sentence, a, I think we can agree that you were in the room with Jeffrey Epstein subsequent to the tour of his home. Is that right? Answer. I, without my wife was not in the room with him socially for business or philanthropy. I was with him with my wife and family for lunch on the island in 2012, which I have gone through. But I was never in social situations with him, Howard Lutnick. I was never in a business situation with him, Howard Lutnick. And I was never in a philanthropic situation with him, Howard Lutnick, ever. Question. Yeah, it's just you drifted a bit from the question. Is it correct that you're in a room with Jeffrey Epstein subsequent to the day of the tour? I'm going to stick to my answer. I thought it was descriptive and accurate. But if I could just get an answer to the question itself, which is, is it correct that you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein in a literal sense, subsequent to the day of. Of the tour of his home? Answer. Again, I have described it correctly and I'm going to stick to my answer. Question. And you interpreted, if I'm hearing it correctly, you interpreted the word I in this statement to mean you alone. Is that right? Answer. It's more than interpreted. I'm the one who said it. I'm telling you what I meant. I'm telling you what I meant. And that's What I said, which is that. And I've already described it. Question. But is it right that you intended to convey, as far as you can recall from the interview last year, you intended to convey the word I, that you were speaking only about yourself individually, not in the context of anybody other than you and Epstein being in the room. When you said I, you just meant I, Secretary Lutnick alone, was never in the room with Epstein. Answer. I think that's generally right. I'm talking to my wife informally as we leave. And we were discussing me, and that's the only person we were discussing is me. And that I would avoid. And I did. Question. Do you. And you may have touched on this. Apologies if you did the island visit. I think you characterize that as not social. Did I hear that correctly? Answer. No. Question. Would you characterize the island visit as social? Answer. I would describe a lunch with my wife and my family and the other couple in their family. Yeah, I would describe that as a social lunch. Meaningless and inconsequential social lunch. I agree. Question. Okay, so then, is it correct to say that you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein socially, but from what I hear you testifying because there were other people present, this statement from the interview was still accurate? Answer. The statement was accurate because as the person who said it, in describing the conversation and informal conversation I had with my wife, I was describing that I would not be in the room with them socially, and I would not put myself in a position which I never was. You are describing something entirely different than what I was expressing, which is a conversation with my wife where she and I discussed that I would not put myself in there. That's why I said. I didn't say we. It would have been easy for me to say we. I said, as I was discussing with my wife, I would not. So that's the difference. I think I am. I was accurate. I think I described it accurately. I don't want it to be modified in any way. It was. I would not be in the room with them socially, which I was not. For business, which I was not, or philanthropic, which I was not. So I believe what I said was accurate. I believe what I said was accurate when I said it, and I believe it now. So I didn't say we would never. I said I would never. Question. Thank you. All right, we're gonna wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.