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

Summary6 min read

The Epstein Chronicles

Episode: Howard Lutnick And The Transcript From His Epstein Related Congressional Hearing (Part 7)
Date: May 16, 2026
Host: Bobby Capucci

Episode Overview

This episode of The Epstein Chronicles dives into Howard Lutnick’s congressional deposition about his interactions (or lack thereof) with Jeffrey Epstein. Host Bobby Capucci dissects a transcript of Lutnick’s testimony, focusing on parsing the language Lutnick used to describe his relationship with Epstein, his rationale for certain statements, and the congressional follow-up on perceived inconsistencies. The episode exposes how language, memory, and intent are scrutinized when powerful figures are held to account for their connections to Epstein.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Dissecting Lutnick's Language about Epstein

Specificity of Statements: Lutnick repeatedly clarifies he was “never in the room with [Epstein] socially, for business or philanthropy,” insisting he was only ever accompanied by his wife during their limited encounters.
Parsing “Alone” vs. “Accompanied”: The committee presses Lutnick to clarify whether “never in the room” meant never alone or never at all; Lutnick’s defense revolves around being “unaccompanied,” specifically by his wife.
- Quote:
  - “I am not accompanied by my wife, would not put myself in that situation that could possibly be with this person, even if he was with other people. It's not alone alone. It's me unaccompanied...” — Howard Lutnick (03:02)

2. Public Perception & Misleading Language

Accusations of Evasion: Congressional questioners argue that Lutnick’s statements were constructed in a way that could mislead the public about his association with Epstein.
- Quote:
  - “It turns out you were at the island socially. Folks have viewed that, I think, as a willful misrepresentation.” — Committee Member (05:54)
Lutnick’s Defense:
- “It was not misleading, no. You know what I said and you know what I meant.” — Howard Lutnick (06:50)

3. Use and Interpretation of “One and Done”

Repetition & Reality: Lutnick repeatedly used the phrase “one and absolutely done” to convey that he distanced himself from Epstein after a single encounter; however, the transcript reveals at least two interactions.
- Quote:
  - “That’s my story. One and absolutely done.” — Howard Lutnick (07:25)
Committee Presses for Clarity:
- “Did you understand that there was more than one subsequent interaction when you use the phrase one and done?” — Committee Member (08:00)

4. Speculation about Surveillance and Blackmail

Lutnick Speculated on Podcasts: On previous podcasts, Lutnick claimed Epstein’s massage rooms were videotaped and that Epstein was the “greatest blackmailer ever,” but under oath, he admits these were speculation, not first-hand knowledge.
- Quotes:
  - “Did Mr. Epstein ever tell you that he recorded people?”
    – “No, that was just me speculating for a podcast.” — Howard Lutnick (09:38)
  - “Did you believe that he engaged in blackmail?”
    – “It was my speculation at the time. … Now you believe he didn’t engage in blackmail? Yes, I don’t believe he did.” — Howard Lutnick (11:10)

5. Lutnick’s Position on Transparency & Regret

Reflecting on Prior Disclosures: Members push Lutnick on whether he regrets not being clearer about the number of interactions with Epstein.
- Quote:
  - “You don’t have some sense that maybe you should have been more forthcoming?... Would you have said the same thing?... LUTNICK: No, for the podcast. … Even if you look at it, you'd say, well, Secretary Lutnick said he wasn’t with the guy, and now that I have full information, he actually wasn’t with the person.” (13:14)
No Regret Stance: Lutnick repeatedly states he has no regrets about how he handled prior disclosures for the podcast.
- “Kanna: So you have no regret? LUTNICK: No, I’m done.” (14:43)

6. Scrutiny over Specific Interactions

Literal vs. Informal Meaning: When pressed on his use of “one and done,” Lutnick argues that “with” means “alone” in the context of an informal marital conversation and that his intent has been misread.
- “To suggest that I was being literal, that I would literally never be in the room with them, is not what I intended. … It was my words.” — Howard Lutnick (16:34)

7. Decision to Visit Epstein’s Island and Memory Lapses

Why go to Epstein’s Island? Lutnick is asked why, finding Epstein “disgusting,” did he and his family visit Epstein’s private island after knowing about his behavior; he states he does not remember the decision-making process.
- “Why would you then go to his island with your family at that point?... I don’t know. I don’t know. You don’t know? I don’t. I don’t remember and I don’t know.” — Howard Lutnick (21:33)

8. Administrative & Political Implications

On Government Discussions: Lutnick confirms only limited communication with the Commerce Department and refuses to discuss any conversations with President Trump regarding Epstein.
- “I’m not going to discuss conversations I have with President but you shouldn’t take it one way or the other.” — Howard Lutnick (20:53)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

03:02 — Lutnick on what he meant by not being “in the room”:
“It's not alone alone. It's me unaccompanied, because we found him to be disgusting.”
05:54 — Committee member alleges misdirection:
“Folks have viewed that, I think, as a willful misrepresentation. I’ve heard your testimony here as to what the intention was. Is there a perception on your part that the statement, as you said, was misleading?”
07:25 — Lutnick defends “one and done”:
“That’s my story. One and absolutely done.”
09:38 — Lutnick on speculation about surveillance:
“That was just me speculating for a podcast.”
11:10 — Lutnick walks back blackmail allegations:
“Did you believe that he engaged in blackmail?... It was my speculation at the time. … Now you believe he didn’t engage in blackmail? Yes, I don’t believe he did.”
13:14 — On whether he should have been more forthcoming:
“No, for the podcast. But I’m saying for the podcast, I made the point.”
16:34 — On literal vs. informal language:
“To suggest that I was being literal, that I would literally never be in the room with them, is not what I intended.”
21:33 — On why he visited Epstein’s island post-conviction:
“I don’t know. I don’t know. You don’t know? I don’t. I don’t remember and I don’t know.”

Important Segment Timestamps

00:00 — Intro, overview of transcript focus
03:00–07:00 — Parsing Lutnick’s language (“alone,” “with,” “accompanied”)
07:25–09:30 — The “one and done” phrase and subsequent events
09:38–11:30 — Speculation regarding blackmail and video evidence
13:14–16:45 — Discussion of regret, transparency, and narrative clarity
16:45–21:30 — Multiple interactions, literal vs. informal descriptions
21:33–end — Memory issues about visiting Epstein’s island and related decisions

Episode Tone & Takeaways

The episode maintains a persistent, probing, yet non-sensational tone—mirroring the measured language of both congressional questioners and Lutnick himself. It interrogates the gray areas of language, intent, and memory as powerful figures reckon with public scrutiny and historical hindsight. Lutnick’s testimony is marked by careful parsing (“alone,” “unaccompanied,” “I” vs “we”), a consistent distancing from Epstein, and frequent deflection to intent rather than effect. While some committee members press for admissions of regret or transparency, Lutnick remains steadfast, reiterating the limited nature and context of his associations.

For further details and documentation, listeners are referred to the episode’s description box.

Loading summary

Transcript1 lines

[00:00]
A
What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to Howard Lutnick and his deposition with Congress. Question. Thank you. Sorry. So the last few questions, they've been focused on the sentence in which you described, not what you and your wife were talking about or what you were envisioning. It was the sentence where you describe the nature of your interaction with Epstein, who. Or lack thereof. So you said, quote, I was never in the room with them socially for business or even philanthropy. I think we agreed the island visit was social in nature. But I've heard you testify that this sentence is accurate as it reads, they're on the paper. And I think the way that you arrive at that conclusion, if I'm interpreting your testimony correctly, is that you've said that you've never been in the room with Epstein. You meant alone, not in the company of other people. Is that right? Answer. No, it's not. It's that I, Howard Lutnick. Not me, not we. Me and my wife. So when my wife and I are talking as we leave the residence, we discussed that I would not put myself in this situation. So I didn't say we would not. So we were with them for lunch on the island. I did not go alone. Whether we were there with other people there or not is. Is not the point I'm making. I'm saying I am not accompanied by my wife, would not put myself in that situation that could possibly be with this person, even if he was with other people. It's not alone alone. It's me unaccompanied, because we found him to be disgusting. Question. And I'll just clarify. I have moved on past the conversation between you and your wife. That's not what I'm asking about. What I'm asking about is the sentence from an interview in which you described your past interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, not what you intended in 2005, what actually happened, and your description of that was that you had been in the room with them socially for business or even philanthropy. We all understand that you were in the room with them in a social setting. But you have insisted that this sentence is accurate. So I just. That does not make sense on its face. And I just want to understand how that could be. Answer. I refers to Howard Lutnick. We refers to my wife and myself together. I didn't say. We didn't discuss that we would never be with him. We discussed that I, as a man, would not. And I, as a man was never. So I Think this is entirely accurate. Howard Lutnick was never with him socially, philanthropically. Right. Or in a business setting. I was never. I was with my wife on two meaningless and inconsequential interactions, but I was never with him. So that was the point. He was an inappropriate person, which we all learned in 2019. Wildly inappropriate or horrible person. And I was never with him. I was never with him. I was with him with my wife on two meaningless occasions, but I was never with him. Therefore, I could never be anything remotely inappropriate because I wouldn't put myself in that situation. And that's the discussion I had with my wife. Question. And so really, what it sounds like is, is that you intended to convey you would have read, so I was never in the room with him alone, socially, for business or philanthropy. Does that accurately characterize what you intended by that sentence? Answer. It would have, but then you would have been asking me, well, did you mean other human beings in the room? I was saying I wouldn't have been there unaccompanied by, in this particular example, my wife. So I would not go unaccompanied. I, I didn't mean that there couldn't be other people in the room. I'm not saying alone. I'm saying I wouldn't go and put myself in a situation where I was unaccompanied with him because he's disgusting. So you never know with someone without boundaries what might occur. I had no interest in being there with him. That's why I used the word I. I didn't use the word we question. And so it sounds like, specifically, even narrower than that. You intended to convey, I was never in a room with him unaccompanied by my wife socially, for business or philanthropy. Is that the nature of the intention? Yeah. Question. Okay. I think that statement, as it reads, is a very simple grammatical sentence and has been interpreted by just about anybody who has heard it as reading exactly how it says, I was never in the room with Epstein socially. Could you understand how folks, I think, have felt misled by that remark? Mr. I would object. I think you're just asking him to speculate what other people thought. Redacted. Questioned. Yeah. I mean, it's not a legal sense. You surely are familiar at this point with the fact that that remark, when it was made, was heard to mean what it says, which is that you are not in the room with Epstein socially for business or philanthropy. It turns out you were at the island socially. Folks have viewed that, I think, as a willful misrepresentation. I've heard your testimony here as to what the intention was. Is there a perception on your part that the statement, as you said, was misleading? It was not misleading, no. You know what I said and you know what I meant. And it's clear from the words that I was accurate. Question and the phrase one and done was used several other times. That's my story. One and absolutely done. Just from a general point of view, you describe two subsequent interactions after the tour. Once and done suggests it was one and done. Did you understand that there was more than one subsequent interaction when you use the phrase one and done? Answer Again, the point I was making is that I wanted to be clear on a podcast that I was never with him, which I was not. As I said, I was never with him, meaning I was never in a situation with him. I was with my wife. And and they were meaningless and inconsequential, but contextually so people would understand I was never with them in any other manner. I HOWARD Lutnick One person was never in a situation, so you couldn't take it out of context. I was never with him. Question and we'll get to some other folks questions here, but what does the phrase one and done mean to you? Or what is your understanding of the meaning of that phrase? Answer I avoided him and I was never with him as a person, as a man. I was never with him. Redacted. I'm going to ask some questions from members of Congress that are here today. Mr. Khana. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You have said, quote, what happened in that massage room, I assume was on video when you were there with Epstein. How did you know it was on video? Did Mr. Epstein ever tell you that he recorded people? Lutnick no, that was just me speculating for a podcast. Did you ever see any recordings? Lutnick no. KANA did you have any reason to know, other than speculation that there were videos taking place? Lutnick know it was speculating for a podcast. Well, what was the speculation based on? Lutnick Just raw speculation. Nothing. Connor and you said also that Epstein was the greatest blackmailer ever. That's how he made his money. What was the premise behind that? I mean, how did you know that? Lutnik I was just speculating for a podcast. But what was? I mean, you speculate on a lot of things. There's a reason you speculate. What was the reason? Why did you believe that to be true? Lunik he seemed to have a lot of money. That's why I was speculating. I was just speculating do you know anyone that he blackmailed or heard anyone that he blackmailed? LUTNIK no. Have you heard anyone say that they felt pressure with him and had to pay him? LUTNIK no. Did you believe that he engaged in blackmail? It was my speculation at the time. Is it still your belief? No. Now you believe he didn't engage in blackmail? Yes, I don't believe he did. So you said that you have a different view of it then did on the podcast now. Lutnick I do. K. And why is that? LNICK because there are people who have been from the administration who have all the details who have said so, and I credit what they say. K First lady Melania Trump said that each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public. Then and only then will we have the truth. Do you agree with the first lady? LNICK I support the first lady, sure. Questioned do you agree with the statement? LUTNICK I don't agree or disagree. I just support her. She also said that she supports the full investigation and the release of the remaining files. Do you support her on that? Lutnik I'll leave that to the administration. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Well, I mean, do you support her on the fact that she's calling for an investigation and releasing the Epstein files? LUTNIK Again, I'll leave that to the administration itself. KANA you don't have an opinion on whether you support the first lady's call? Terwillinger, the other lawyer for Lutnick, jumps in. I think the question's been asked several times and answered. You said that technically you were accurate in this podcast about never wanting to be in the room with Epstein as a matter, not a legal matter or as a matter of legality. But do you have some regret that you should have been more forthcoming if you had to do it again? And I say I did have these two encounters that you say were trivial. LNICK no, this was a podcast and I think I made the point reasonably. K. You have no yeah, look, I actually believe you that you didn't go and try to do some of the other disgusting men did with Epstein. But you don't have some sense that maybe you should have been more forthcoming. I'm not saying it's sort of career ending. I'm just saying now you see that sort of people are saying that you weren't fully transparent. Would you have said the same thing or do you have some sense of maybe I should have mentioned a couple more things. LUTNICK no, for the podcast. But I'm saying for the podcast, I made the point. Even if you look at it, you'd say, well, Secretary Lutnick said he wasn't with the guy, and now that I have full information, he actually wasn't with the person. I mean, that's true. Mr. Khana, you acknowledge the fact that you had these things that came out in the files. Do you think that before that you should have said something at that point, whether it was just a podcast or not, you know, no one's perfect. I'm just saying, in retrospect, do you think that you should have been a little bit more forthcoming on those two incidents? And maybe it wouldn't have been as big of a deal if you had said that? LUTNICK I thought I described an informal conversation with my wife, but from 20 years ago, to make the point I was trying to make, I thought I made it reasonably. I tried to make it reasonably. Kanna so you have no regret? LUTNIK no, I'm done. Mr. Sub Miranium thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today as well. I appreciate your time. I'm just having struggling with this one and absolutely done. Does that mean were you trying to imply that you had only met with Epstein once when you said that? LUTNICK I was trying to let the podcast understand that I would never be with him. He was a disgusting person, which we all learned after 2019. Mr. Submaranian oh, I know that. Lutnick But I was never with him. And the point I was making was that I was never with him and that the people listening to the podcast should understand. I never put myself in a situation or where I was with him, where anything could have possibly happened. That's why I said that's why I described the conversation I had with my wife reasonably accurately. Informally, but reasonably accurately. Question when you're sitting down with them talking about scaffolding, aren't you with them in that room? Even if your wife is there, you're both with him, right? LNICK yeah. QUESTION Are you and I with each other right now? Are you, Are we in the same room? Lutnick yeah. QUESTION there's other people here, right? But you and I are both here with each other right now. So how can you say that you are not with them subsequently? That's what I'm trying to understand. Lutnick I think I reasonably described an informal conversation I had with my wife that would be understood by people who were married, that we had an encounter with someone who was inappropriate and we discussed that I would avoid him. And I think everybody who's married understands that when they have a conversation with their wife that the wife can say, you avoid them. It's a conversation that everybody, I think, understands. And to suggest that I was being literal, that I would literally never be in the room with them, is not what I intended. It was my words. Question I understand. Lutnick and I'm telling you that is not what I said. I said it was a conversation, an informal conversation with me and, and my wife. And I think people who are married would understand that my wife was saying to me, avoid him. He has no boundaries. And you know for a fact that I did avoid him. I literally avoided him. QUESTION I don't know that for a fact because there's two other occasions where you didn't avoid him. You did not have to go to his island, so you didn't avoid him. In that case, you didn't have to go talk to him about scaffolding, so you didn't avoid him then either. But when you say one and done, that means one occasion in which you were with him, even with your wife. So would you say that was not an accurate statement to say one and absolutely done. And remember, this is two separate times. You're talking, you're talking once about with his wife, about the conversation with your wife, rather, and then you're separately saying, so I was never with him, never in the room with him socially, so that was separate. You are not talking about the conversation with your wife here. You said one and absolutely done. And after that you said, that's my story. So you were implying that you had only been there, been with him once. LUTNICK I tried to describe it in detail, so I'll stick with my description, which I gave you in the same exact topic. I'm gonna switch gears a bit. Have you talked to the Commerce Department about your inclusion in the Epstein files or appearance here today? LUTNICK yeah. QUESTION what were those conversations about generally? Lutnick. That I would be attending and that I have a lawyer. Question have you used Commerce Department resources or staff to discuss this or talk about your defense today? Let Nick know. Question and have you had conversations with President Trump about Jeffrey Epstein or the Epstein files generally, or your involvement with any of them? LUTNICK I'm not going to discuss conversations I have with President but you shouldn't take it one way or the other. I'm just not going to have discussions on it. But please don't take from that one way or the other. With respect to the conversation question, have you had conversations with Attorney General Bondi or former Attorney General Bondi or the current Attorney General about the Epstein case? No. Question. Did this ever come up during your vetting? You're living next door to Jeffrey Epstein or any association with him? Lutnick not that I can remember. Question and the last question you mentioned that you were you found them disgusting, you found them gross, right? And you didn't want to be involved with them. Why would you then go to his island with your family at that point? What was your decision making process to go to his island at that point in 2012, so many years later? Lutnik I don't know. I don't know. You don't know? I don't. I don't remember and I don't know. Do you recall the decision making process with your staff as far as deciding to go to the island? Did they say this is a good idea? What was the decision making process like? Do you remember? Lutnick I don't. As I said earlier, the fact that they, that his staff knew I was going to be there and pursued us is inexplicable and unsettling. But I don't remember. Submaranium thank you. Alright folks, we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next episode we're gonna pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.